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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: the call is free, results are 'candidates, not proof', and Shopify-origin carts will return unknown rather than a payment result. The unknown-return caveat is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

The first two sentences are tight and front-loaded, with the core lookup stated before the caveats. The trailing instruction to follow server guidance on catalog usage is generic boilerplate that dilutes focus, and 'Free.' as a standalone fragment interrupts the flow.

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 compensates by sketching the possible status values (paid, confirmed, declined by the owner, unknown), so an agent can interpret the response. Combined with the Shopify limitation and the non-final polling cue, this is close to complete for a one-parameter read tool.

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% for the single order_id parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. It does add provenance ('from place_order or book_slot'), telling the agent where to obtain a valid value, but says nothing about the uuid format or what happens with a malformed or foreign id.

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 ('status of an order_id') and pins the resource to the two tools that create it (place_order, book_slot), so an agent knows this is a follow-up lookup rather than a creation call. It does not explicitly separate itself from the similarly-named sibling request_status, which leaves one differentiation gap.

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 a clear condition for use: re-ask the platform 'when it is not final', implying polling until a terminal state. It also names a case where it is not the right tool ('A Shopify cart link answers unknown — payment is on Shopify's side'), which is a useful exclusion. It stops short of naming an alternative for that Shopify case.

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