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

Annotations already establish the safe read profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does add meaningful context by describing the state machine it reports (unpaid → paid → printing → mailing → tracking), which tells the agent what a result can contain; it does not mention polling or rate-limit behavior.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It is reasonably front-loaded but the convoluted 'Whether an order ... and once paid, its ...' construction costs it clarity against a cleaner 'Check whether ...' phrasing.

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 carries the burden of conveying return content, and it does so by naming the stages reported (payment, printing, mailing, tracking). What an agent receives is therefore broadly understandable, though the exact shape of tracking data and error cases are left unspecified.

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 each parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only gestures at session_id indirectly through 'started with order_card' and adds no new meaning for order_id or wait_seconds.

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 makes clear this is a read of an order's lifecycle state (paid → printing → mailing → tracking), and it explicitly ties the order to the order_card sibling, so an agent can distinguish it from order_card (create) and list_my_orders (enumerate). The phrasing is grammatically awkward and omits an explicit verb like 'check', but the resource and what is returned are unambiguous.

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 implied rather than stated: you call this to see whether an order placed via order_card has been paid and how far fulfillment has progressed. There is no explicit when-to-use, no guidance on choosing between session_id and order_id, and no mention of how this relates to list_my_orders.

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