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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value beyond them: 'signed wallet invocation authentication' (an auth requirement) and 'zero payment and Provider effects' (effect disclosure). It stops short of saying whether the call polls, blocks, or mutates order 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the safety/effect clause is packed efficiently. Its terseness, however, is bought at the cost of omitting parameter and lifecycle detail.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema the description need not explain return values, and it does cover auth and side-effect safety. It is nonetheless incomplete: the opaque 'purchase' parameter is never addressed and the relationship to result_china_supply_check_v0 is undefined.

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 coverage is 0% and the description mentions no parameters. order_id is partly self-documenting via its csc-[0-9a-f]{64} pattern, but the second parameter 'purchase' has an empty schema with no type or meaning anywhere, so the description entirely fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 read of a durable 'CSC order', which is a specific verb+resource, but the domain term CSC is never expanded and the tool does not distinguish itself from sibling result_china_supply_check_v0 (both appear to read order state). An agent cannot confidently tell status from result without opening the schemas.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given, despite a rich sibling set (prepare/invoke/result/discover variants). The lifecycle position of this 'status' read is left entirely to inference.

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