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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real behavioral value by disclosing what the response contains and that download links appear only 'once completed', implying state-dependent output. It says nothing about invalid/expired tokens, error behavior, or whether the order must be polled repeatedly.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the most important element (the order's status) is front-loaded. It is slightly awkward as an incomplete noun phrase, but every clause conveys real information about the return value.

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 only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description's job is to convey what comes back, and it does so concretely (status, next step, certificate number, links). Gaps remain around failure modes and whether repeated polling is expected, but for a simple read tool this is largely sufficient.

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 both parameters (token, order_id) are documented as coming from create_order. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema carries all parameter semantics.

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 names a specific resource (an order's status) and enumerates the payload: status, next step, certificate number, and download links. It is unambiguous what the tool returns, but it never differentiates itself from siblings like create_order or get_service_info, and it phrases the purpose as a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites beyond what the schema already says, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that it should call this after create_order and to poll for completion, which the description never states.

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