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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: it discloses that invocation requires signed wallet authentication and that there are zero payment effects. It could say more about latency or retry behavior, but it meaningfully extends 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?

A single dense sentence with the read action front-loaded and no filler. It is compact, though the heavy jargon makes it less immediately parseable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what a 'result' contains and how it differs from a status response, but it does not. Combined with 0% parameter documentation, the definition is only minimally complete for an agent attempting to call it correctly.

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% across two parameters, one required. The description never mentions order_id or the opaque 'purchase' field, leaving the required ^csc-[0-9a-f]{64}$ format and the empty-object purchase param unexplained by any natural-language text.

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?

"Read your durable CSC order" gives a verb (read) and a resource (CSC order), which roughly separates it from sibling discovery/invoke tools. However, "CSC" is never expanded, and the key distinction between this and status_china_supply_check_v0 (status vs. result) is not articulated, so an agent must infer what 'result' means here.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance and never references the related prepare_china_supply_check_v0, invoke_*, or status_* siblings. An agent cannot tell from the text when to fetch a result versus poll status.

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