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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key safety facts: 'Charges nothing and starts nothing,' which tells the agent this is a free, non-initiating read that won't spawn work. It also enumerates what is returned (state, quote lines, expiry, order progress, receipt, refund, result_id). It omits error behavior for an invalid/unknown quote_id and whether polling is expected, which keeps it below 5.

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?

It is a single sentence that front-loads the usage trigger and cost/side-effect guarantee before the return inventory. Despite being clause-dense, every clause carries information an agent needs for chaining, since there is no output schema to offload the return description to.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must describe both safety and returns, and it does so concretely, including the result_id needed to continue the workflow. The remaining gap is failure/polling behavior — what happens if the quote_id is unknown or still 'estimating' — which matters for an agent driving a state machine.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('the quote_id from get_quote, e.g. Q-0123456789abcdef'), so the schema already does the work. The description only reinforces the same provenance ('with the quote_id') and adds no format or edge-case guidance beyond it, so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (returns the state of a quote/order) and enumerates the actual state values (estimating, quoted, paid and running, delivered, refunded), so the agent knows exactly what domain concept is being reported. It also names the sibling tools it relates to (get_quote upstream, get_result downstream), making it distinguishable without opening any schema.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use after get_quote or a payment,' which tells the agent precisely when in the workflow to call it. It also states the downstream handoff ('once delivered, the result_id to pass to get_result'), effectively routing between siblings.

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