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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the link is permanent, it covers whole/filtered/combined orders, and links accept a ?shape= parameter. It doesn't say what is returned for an unpaid session or whether the result can change, which keeps it from 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 front-loaded sentences with almost no waste: purpose first, then order-type scope, then the shape option. The CRM-shape detail is practical but is the one element that could be trimmed or moved to a schema note, so it isn't a perfect 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing what comes back (paid status plus a permanent download link) and the shape variants. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool, lacking only a statement of the unpaid/failure response.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents sessionId's type, pattern and origin. The description reinforces the cs_… format and the id's source, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the structured field provides, matching the baseline for high 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?

States a specific verb and resource: given a Stripe Checkout session id, report whether it is paid and return the permanent download link. It also scopes the supported order types (whole file, filtered rows, combined datasets), which clearly separates it from create_checkout and the dataset-query siblings.

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 ties the tool to its prerequisite by naming the source of the id ('from create_checkout' in the schema, 'cs_…' format in the text), so an agent knows this is the post-checkout status check. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use it or naming a polling cadence, so it's clear context without exclusions.

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