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

Beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations, it discloses the email-based access gate ('what stops anyone reading anyone else's order'), the awaiting-payment return shape (paid: false plus payment link), and the not-found outcome for swept unpaid orders. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the requirement, then an edge case. Dense and nearly waste-free, though the security rationale sentence could be trimmed slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return states (paid: false with payment link, and not-found for swept unpaid orders). Combined with the parameter requirements, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining why email is required (as an access control gate on the caller's own order), which clarifies intent rather than just restating format.

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+resource ('payment and fulfilment state for an order') and scopes it to 'an order you created', which reads differently from sibling tools like get_client_order. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

The description implies the usage context (checking an order you created, requiring the original billing email) but never explicitly contrasts with the closest sibling, get_client_order, or states when not to use this tool. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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