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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavior: it independently verifies Stripe payment, but only when a checkout session exists. This conditional behavior is not captured by the annotations and gives the agent a clearer picture of what the tool does beyond simply reading state.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action (read order state) and adds the secondary verification behavior. There is no redundant wording or 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It conveys the core behavior and conditional verification. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., order status fields, payment verification boolean) or how errors are handled. This is a minor gap for a tool this simple.

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 schema provides no description for order_id (0% coverage), and the description does not explain what order_id is, its format, or any domain meaning. While the tool name and description suggest it identifies a service order, the agent is left to infer that. The description should have explicitly connected order_id to the order being read.

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 a specific action (read order state) and a specific resource (website service order), plus an additional capability (independently verify Stripe payment). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_website_service_offers and prepare_website_service_checkout) by focusing on order status and payment verification, not offers or checkout creation.

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 usage for checking order status and verifying payment, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling alternatives. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the sibling names alone.

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