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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does genuinely useful work: it discloses that the call can be made mid-flight ('check progress') and after completion, and critically that the return is three people's separate accounts rather than a merged verdict, with the explicit stance 'we do not tell you what to conclude.' Gaps remain around failure/not-ready behavior and the exact response shape.

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 compact, front-loaded sentences lead with the action and then the important return semantics; nothing is padded. The appended Chinese translation duplicates the English rather than adding information, but it is plausibly a deliberate bilingual convention rather than noise.

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 and no annotations, the description does describe what comes back (each of the three people's views, separately) and the ordering/prerequisite context. It stops short of covering not-ready/error states, polling cadence, or result format, which leaves a small but real gap for a result-fetching 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'the order_id you got when ordering' mirrors the schema text rather than adding format, source-of-truth, or validation detail beyond 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource — checking the progress/result of one verification via order_id — and clarifies the scope (one verification, three people's separate reports). It is clear on its own, but it never names or contrasts with the siblings (e.g. verify_place, get_ask_answer), so the agent must infer the routing from the resource word alone.

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 rather than stated: 'by the order_id you got when ordering' and the progress-vs-ready framing tell the agent this is the follow-up call after ordering a verification. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as get_ask_answer, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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