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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at non-destructive behavior ('without initiating payment') but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it disclose other behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is minimal and leaves room for ambiguity.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that clearly communicates the dual functionality and the key constraint (no payment initiation). Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers both modes of operation (with and without order_id) and clarifies the non-payment nature. Given the simple scope, no additional context seems necessary.

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 sole parameter, order_id, is optional and just a string with no schema description. The description adds meaning by explaining that providing order_id allows inspecting a specific universal order, while omitting it describes active settlement adapters. This clarifies the parameter's role, which is valuable given 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's actions: to describe active settlement adapters or inspect one universal order. It also explicitly notes 'without initiating payment,' which differentiates it from payment-related tools like gf.payment_status. However, it doesn't name specific sibling tools, so it's not 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?

The description implies when to use this tool (when you need to inspect adapters or an order without initiating payment) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like gf.payment_status or gf.universal_status. The 'without initiating payment' phrase hints at the exclusion but leaves routing to inference.

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