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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive traits. The description adds an important behavioral detail beyond annotations: a two-step authorization challenge flow with a short-lived challenge, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the critical auth flow. No wasted words; 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?

The description covers the complex authorization handshake, which is the hardest part. But with 0% schema description coverage, four parameters, and nested objects, it leaves required parameter orderHandle and optional readCapability unexplained. Output schema and annotations reduce the burden elsewhere.

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% and the description mentions only the authorization parameter, giving its EIP-712 nature. It does not explain the required orderHandle, the request object, or readCapability, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 clear verb+resource: get the current state of a purchased outcome. It aligns with the tool name daski_get_order_status but does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like daski_get_outcome or daski_get_order_access.

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 a clear procedural context: call once without authorization to receive a short-lived challenge, then retry with the payer's EIP-712 authorization. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, but the when-to-use is strongly implied.

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