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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the response is conditional on payment state ('Once paid, returns every generated document'), which tells the agent the document payload can be absent.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler; the primary return (payment status) is front-loaded and the conditional document payload follows. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, which it does concretely (status, Markdown documents, hosted policy/deletion URLs). Combined with full schema coverage for inputs and annotations for the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

With 2 parameters at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains both order_id and app_token, including their provenance. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the payment status of an order') and expands on the secondary payload (generated documents plus hosted URLs). The 'order' resource is unique among the siblings audit_app, create_checkout, and publish_document, so an agent can route to it without ambiguity.

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?

The description implies when the tool is useful by naming the consumption targets ('ready to paste into App Store Connect, Play Console or the Google OAuth consent screen'), which gives genuine downstream context. However, it never states when to call this versus create_checkout or publish_document, nor any prerequisite like needing an order_id from a prior checkout.

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