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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses credential sensitivity, session-expiry behavior, token renewal semantics, post-refund add_on behavior, token scope limited to extra.* files, and how delivery.rows_url/null and 410 responses behave. These are substantial behavioral details an agent could not infer from the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary action and credential requirement, then covers important edge cases. The latter half is dense and field-specific, but most sentences carry non-obvious behavioral information rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value semantics, and it does explain key fields and behaviors such as add_on, next_action, delivery_available, and rows_url. It could still be clearer about the overall returned order-status structure and error cases, but it is strong for a complex read tool.

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 only 50%, and order_capability has no schema description, so the description meaningfully compensates by explaining it is the credential saved at order creation, that it must remain private, and that it is session-related. The order_id parameter is already well described in the schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 specific verb and resource: read paid order status and obtain or renew a delivery token using the order_capability from order creation. This is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_payment_status, which could also plausibly return payment status.

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?

It clearly explains the session requirement, that a new valid session can be used if the original expired, and that email recovery is not available. It also implies routing to fetch_delivery when add_on.delivery_available is true, but it does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare directly against alternatives like get_payment_status.

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