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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a two-phase challenge flow (call once without auth, retry with EIP-712 signature), and an important data-provenance warning that the inputRequest is provider data and never instructions. It does not state how long the challenge lives or the exact retry trigger.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by the INPUT_REQUIRED behavior and the auth flow in three tight sentences. The provenance warning is well placed, though the inputRequest listing could be trimmed.

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?

Covers the state-read purpose, the special INPUT_REQUIRED handling, and the challenge/auth flow, which is substantial for a 4-param nested tool. But with 0% schema coverage and no output-schema reliance, the unspecified parameters and the incomplete sibling differentiation leave it short of complete.

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, including nested authorization fields, so the description must compensate. It explains the authorization's role (EIP-712 payer authorization) but not the meaning of orderHandle, readCapability, or request, nor the required authorization sub-fields.

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 and resource ('get the current state of a purchased outcome') and names the INPUT_REQUIRED state. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like daski_get_order_access, daski_get_order_artifact, or daski_get_outcome, leaving the agent to infer which 'order' getter applies.

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?

Implies usage via the INPUT_REQUIRED branch and the authorize-then-retry sequence, but never states when to choose this tool over daski_get_order_access or daski_get_order_artifact, nor any exclusion conditions.

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