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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the post-payment timing context, but it does not disclose additional traits such as return format, pagination, or whether the required fields vary by language.

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?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then explains the agent's benefit. Every clause earns its place with no redundant or filler text.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description sufficiently explains what is returned ('the fields') and why to call it. It could be slightly stronger by mentioning that the field list may depend on the customer language, but that detail is available in the schema.

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 100%, and the single 'lang' parameter is fully documented in the schema with its enum values and default. The description adds no additional meaning for the parameter, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('the fields the customer fills in on the thank-you page after payment'), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like faq or get_order_link, so the agent must infer the distinction from context.

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 phrase 'so an agent can help prepare them in advance' implies the usage context: use this tool before the customer reaches the thank-you page. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, leaving the routing decision partially implied.

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