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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the four possible statuses and the expected polling cadence, which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about error behavior for unknown order_ids, latency, or whether the call is side-effect free.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded ahead of the polling caveat.

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 single-parameter read-style tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, expected return states, and polling behavior. Minor gaps remain around failure modes, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and the description adds no detail about order_id format or origin beyond what the schema already states ('order_id returned by portvan_create_order'). Baseline 3 applies with a single well-documented parameter.

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 (check) and resource (order) and enumerates the possible statuses returned, which makes the tool's scope concrete. It is clearly distinct from portvan_create_order and portvan_catalog, though it never names them.

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?

Gives actionable timing guidance: poll every 5-10 seconds after paying, which tells the agent when to invoke it repeatedly. It does not state exclusions or name alternative tools, but the implied workflow (use after create_order/payment) is clear.

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