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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral nuance: it may record a finalized blockchain receipt or release an expired, never-submitted reservation. It also discloses pending-response behavior and explicitly negates payment/order-creation side effects, going well beyond the annotations.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose/scope, side effects and exclusions, then retry behavior and auth. No redundancy, no filler, and the most important scoping constraint is front-loaded.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers scope, ownership, side effects, what it does not do, pending/retry behavior, and authentication requirements. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The single parameter order_id is fully documented in the schema with a pattern and description ('The original order_id returned by the purchase'). The description adds context about reusing the same order ID for retries, but the schema already carries the essential parameter meaning, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Follow') and resource ('one existing commercial order owned by the authenticated agent'), and the title clarifies 'status and delivery'. It clearly distinguishes itself from purchase-related sibling tools by explicitly saying it does not create an order, authorize spending, or submit a payment.

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 explicit when-to-use context ('including after commerce is paused') and clear retry guidance: pending results provide the same order ID and Retry-After, so the agent should repeat get_order and never purchase again. It also states the only prerequisite: the existing agent key.

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