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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that despite being a 'check', each call runs a rate-limited domain move and may release payment to the seller, and clarifies that this is the order proceeding rather than an extra charge. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious side-effect context the readOnlyHint=false annotation cannot convey.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately followed by the critical side-effect warning and the sibling routing. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation; the description instead covers side effects, polling cadence, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there (token as a secret, orderId from checkout). The description adds only the ownership framing of the token (buyer/seller holder), which mildly enriches but does not replace schema content — 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns an order's state and the next actions available to the token holder. It explicitly distinguishes itself from act_on_order ('this tool only reports state'), so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

Gives explicit boundaries: use act_on_order instead for confirm, dispute or refund, and poll no faster than pollAfterSeconds. Both the alternative and the operating constraint are named outright.

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