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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses cost (free), auth (keyless, nothing to sign), a dry-run semantic (dry-run orders never show a payment), and the non-mutating guarantee. That auth/cost/dry-run context is genuinely additive. Some overlap with readOnlyHint (read-only, changes nothing) is redundant but harmless.

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 primary purpose is front-loaded and the two modes are easy to scan. There is mild redundancy between 'Free, keyless, read-only' and 'Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign,' which slightly dilutes an otherwise efficient description.

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 an output schema covering return values, full annotation coverage, and 100% schema description coverage, the description supplies the remaining needed context: both operating modes, dry-run behavior, and access/cost model. An agent has everything required to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms the refusal parameter's purpose (plain meaning plus next step) but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema's own 'insufficient_net_coverage' example and NETORD_ pattern.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read one NET service order') and enumerates what the order object contains: state, who acts next, product gates, and a verifiable service receipt. It also covers the second mode (refusal-code lookup). It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from nearby siblings like next_action, request_status, or work_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear usage context for both entry points: pass an order to inspect state/gates/receipt, or pass a refusal code to get its meaning and next step. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming the alternative tool to use instead, which is why it isn't a 5.

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