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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the two-phase challenge-then-authorize handshake and the 'short-lived' nature of the challenge, which is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded ahead of the invocation sequence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 not be described. But with a nested 9-field authorization object, a large readCapability string, and 0% schema coverage, the description accounts for only part of the input surface and omits the nature of readCapability entirely.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It adds meaning for one parameter by naming the EIP-712 payer authorization and the challenge flow that produces it, but leaves orderHandle, request, and especially readCapability (80–2048 chars) entirely unexplained.

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 (Retrieve) and a precise resource (the protected result artifact for a completed order). 'Protected result artifact' and the 'completed order' scope distinguish it from siblings like get_order_access, get_order_status, and get_outcome, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The description gives explicit procedural guidance for invocation: call once without authorization to obtain a short-lived challenge, then retry with the payer's EIP-712 authorization. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over sibling retrieval tools or prerequisites for order state.

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