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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the link is private to the client, and a wrong or revoked link surfaces as a missing order, telling the agent how to interpret failures. It also notes each publication is processed independently.

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 with 'For a paid order:' and every sentence carries information, but the long comma-chained enumeration of returned artifacts is denser and less scannable than it could be. No wasted filler, though.

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 correctly takes on the job of describing what comes back, and it covers the auth prerequisite and failure mode. It is nearly complete; a note on how it differs from check_order_status is the main missing piece.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the orderLink format in detail. The description only reinforces that the link is private and error-prone when wrong, adding little semantic detail about the parameter itself, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 makes clear this returns the full working state of a paid order — each publication, its stage, next steps, submitted content, and latest draft — which is a specific resource with a specific scope. It never states a retrieval verb explicitly since it is framed as an inventory of return contents, and it does not distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling check_order_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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for a paid order and requires the client's private order link. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as check_order_status, which likely covers a lighter-weight status query.

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