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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally; the description adds the closed-world state vocabulary (awaiting payment, queued, capturing, first delivery sent, complete, plus per-witness waiting/capturing/captured/failed/refused) and an explicit negative scope ('never returns the e-mail address, the addresses ordered or anything else about the customer'), which is genuinely useful context. It stops short of stating behavior on an unknown reference or stale record.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its state vocabulary, ending with the privacy boundary. The two enumerations are information-dense rather than padding, though the second ('Per witness: …') interrupts the flow slightly.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing return values by enumerating both record-level and per-witness states, and it bounds what is not returned. It omits error/invalid-reference behavior and any indication of whether status can change over time (polling expectations), leaving a small gap for a point-in-time status 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter carries its own description with an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the reference prefix (MW-K-…) but adds no format, validation, or sensitivity detail beyond the schema. 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 resource (a point-in-time record) and the information returned (its status, keyed by reference), and enumerates the possible states, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as check_coverage or order_capture, so an agent still has to infer the boundary. Clear purpose, no sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by its reference (MW-K-…)' signals a lookup keyed on an existing order reference, and the enumerated states imply a polling/monitoring use. There is no explicit when-to-use-this versus check_coverage or order_capture, and no stated preconditions. Minimum viable guidance.

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