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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Es solo lectura' is largely redundant. However, the description adds genuinely non-structured context: the auth prerequisite that the customer must be logged in, and the enumerated outcome states (pending confirmation, expired, cancelled, converted to an order with its number).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the state outcomes, then the identification method, then the read-only and auth notes. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

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, the description compensates by enumerating the possible return states and noting the order number is returned. Combined with the auth requirement and lookup keys, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds an either/or identification rule (prepared_id OR the idempotency_key you used) that clarifies the intended alternative use of the two lookup parameters, though it does not mention the country parameter.

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?

It names the specific resource (a prepared order made by prepare_order) and a precise verb-like function: reporting which of several lifecycle states it is in. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling prepare_order, which creates the resource rather than querying its state.

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 clearly places the tool in a workflow: use it after prepare_order, and identify the order via prepared_id or the idempotency_key you used. It does not spell out explicit exclusions or when to prefer one identifier over the other, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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