Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description reinforces 'It changes nothing' (redundant) but adds the prerequisite that order_ref must come from pinflower_create_order, which is useful context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the use case, then the prerequisite and exclusions. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only status tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, required parameter, and differentiation from siblings. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% (locale documented, order_ref not). The description compensates for order_ref by explaining its origin ('the order_ref that pinflower_create_order returned'), which is essential. It doesn't add extra detail for locale, but the schema already covers it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear, specific purpose: checking the status of an order (paid, confirmed, on the way, delivered) and ties it to a prior creation step. It explicitly names alternatives (pinflower_new_pay_link, pinflower_cancel_order) that it is not, distinguishing it from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a direct when-to-use condition ('when the buyer asks what is happening with an order'), requires a specific prerequisite (order_ref from pinflower_create_order), and explicitly lists exclusions for two other tools. This is clear, actionable guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.