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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to add real behavioral context: the call re-resolves payment links on every invocation, making it a convergence/polling read rather than a static snapshot, and authoritative payment status lives outside this tool. It stops short of describing error behavior for an unknown or stale order_id, and 'honest status' is evocative rather than precise.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the following sentences each carry a distinct payload (polling trigger, link re-resolution, where payment truth lives). It is denser and longer than a one-parameter read tool strictly needs, with the Stripe/meter aside bordering on tangential, but nothing is pure 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?

With no output schema, the description does enough to convey the return surface (recorded basket, status, resolved payment links) and points to siblings for data it does not return. It omits failure modes for a bad or expired order_id, which leaves a small gap for a tool agents are expected to poll repeatedly.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already fully documents order_id as 'The UUID returned by create_order.' The description restates the same provenance link with no additional syntax, format, or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Re-read an order intent created by create_order') and immediately scopes what is returned: 'the recorded basket and its honest status.' It explicitly ties itself to the create_order sibling and separates its data domain from get_account, so an agent can place it 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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('Poll it after forwarding create_order's handoff note') and explains why polling is needed (payment links are re-resolved against the current registry, so minted links appear later). It also routes the agent elsewhere for adjacent data, naming Stripe for checkout payment status and get_account for metered receipts.

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