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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the token is revocable, must not be echoed back or embedded in a URL, and is never a password. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior for invalid/expired codes, which would have completed the picture.

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 purpose before the handling constraints, with no filler. The middle sentence ('Never ask for a password') is agent-directed and slightly breaks the flow, but it carries real behavioral 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?

The tool is a single-parameter read with an output schema, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover safety. The description supplies the remaining agent-critical context: what the code is, that it is revocable, and how to treat it confidentially.

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 0% — the single 'token' property is an undescribed string with maxLength 256. The description compensates well by identifying it as a 'dos_ code', stating it is revocable and private, and distinguishing it from a password. It still doesn't say where the user obtains the code or what an expired/revoked one does.

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 ('Read') and a bounded resource ('the limited status of one Duoly order'), scoped to a single order. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_quote or get_availability. The only weakness is the undefined qualifier 'limited status', which leaves the payload's scope vague without consulting the output 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative sibling is named for adjacent needs (e.g., get_quote or find_session for related lookups). The only directives are handling rules about the code, not routing guidance. Usage is inferable from the verb but never stated.

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