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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: per-state output contents, the 24-hour download URL validity window, and what the 'failed' state tells you. It stops short of error semantics outside 'failed' or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then the three state behaviors in order of occurrence. Every sentence carries information, though the run-on 'done' sentence could be split for scanability.

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 must carry return-value semantics — and it does, describing the fields returned per status. Auth is covered by the schema. It is only slightly short of complete: it never enumerates all possible status values or says how often to poll while processing.

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 100%, so both order_id and the optional api_key are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., what an invalid or foreign order_id returns), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (an order) and its status, then enumerates the distinct state outcomes (processing/done/failed), which makes the tool's job unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from barevalue_list_orders, so the sibling boundary is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool you call to check on a single submitted order. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. list_orders/updates guidance, no polling advice, and no stated prerequisites beyond the auth note that already lives in the schema.

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