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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds meaningful context beyond that: signed-wallet authentication, zero payment, zero Provider effects, and the return payload type. It does not describe failure modes for an incomplete order, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentences with the retrieval purpose front-loaded, which is good, but the dense internal jargon ('durable Agent CSC order', 'csc.delivery.v4', 'secure card recovery link') costs tokens without adding clarity for an agent.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns and it does name the delivery payload and supplier count, plus auth requirements. Still missing is any notion of order states/errors (e.g., what an incomplete order returns) and the meaning of the second parameter.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does not. The order_id pattern (^csc-[0-9a-f]{64}$) and the entirely undocumented 'purchase' parameter are never explained; the 'do not repay' line hints at payment but does not define what 'purchase' accepts.

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 verb ('Read') and resource (Agent CSC order), but the phrasing is jargon-heavy ('durable Agent CSC order') and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling status_china_supply_check_v0, which is the likely confusion point. The claim that 'completed images return csc.delivery.v4' partially clarifies the payload but reads as internal notation rather than plain 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?

'Do not repay for existing results' and 'Stripe users use their secure card recovery link' imply you should call this only after a purchase exists, which is useful conditional context. However, no alternative tool is named and the boundary versus status/run/purchase siblings is left implicit.

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