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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's main added value is the authentication requirement (Sign-In-With-X) and the ownership constraint that the order must be one this wallet paid. Those are exactly the non-obvious behavioral facts an agent needs before calling. It stops short of describing failure modes for unauthenticated or unpaid orders.

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?

A single front-loaded clause listing the returned artifacts, followed by the auth and ownership qualifier. No filler; the only weakness is the sentence-fragment style, which makes the action verb implicit.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back and the auth model, which is the core need. It leaves gaps on the order_id source and on error behavior when the order was not paid by the caller's wallet.

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 0% for the single parameter, and the description never names or describes order_id directly; it only implies 'an order this wallet paid'. The ownership constraint adds real meaning beyond the bare string type, but format and source of the ID remain 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 names a specific deliverable (pass link, pickup code, QR content) for a specific resource (an order paid by this wallet), which is far more informative than the title's restatement. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like order_status, but the retrieved artifacts are distinct enough that an agent can identify the purpose.

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 implied through the precondition that the order must have been paid by this wallet, which effectively tells the agent when this tool is applicable. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over order_status or create_pickup_order, and no mention of what happens for unpaid orders.

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