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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it enumerates candidate status outcomes (paid, confirmed, declined by owner), explains the `unknown` sentinel for Shopify carts and why, and notes the call is free. That is more than the annotations convey.

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 dense sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the caveat and cost appended. Every clause carries information; 'Free' is terse but genuinely useful for a polling tool, though it reads slightly clipped.

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 sketching return values (status words plus an `unknown` case), which is the main thing an agent needs to interpret a response. It stops short of promising exhaustive status enumeration, but is sufficient to call and read the result correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of `order_id` — and it does, defining it by provenance (the id returned by place_order or book_slot). The uuid format is left to the schema, which is reasonable since the schema declares it.

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-resource pair: it retrieves the status of an `order_id`. Crucially, it names the two sibling tools that produce such an id (place_order, book_slot), so an agent can immediately distinguish it from quote_order, get_product, and the other catalog tools.

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 trigger — re-poll the platform 'when it is not final' — and bounds the input to ids from place_order or book_slot. It also flags a specific non-applicable case (Shopify cart links yield `unknown`), which functions as a when-not. It does not mention rate limits or polling cadence, keeping it just short of a 5.

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