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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, not open-world), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: delivery_eta is null until the merchant ships and merchant_contact is only present while the order is open (not once CLOSED). These conditional-availability rules are useful and not derivable from the schema or annotations.

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 text is dense and information-rich but structured as a run-on enumeration of payload fields, with the operation itself and the usage trigger buried at the end. It earns most of its length but is not front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not strictly required, yet the description spends most of its words on return fields and omits the input parameter semantics. Behavioral conditions are well covered, leaving the order_id gap as the main incompleteness.

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?

The single required parameter order_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it at all, so nothing explains where the id comes from or its format. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate and it does not.

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 makes clear this returns the state and content of a single order (state, events, tracking, delivery_eta, refund_policy, tx_hash), which is recoverable as a read operation despite the opening being a field list rather than a verb+resource statement. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like shop.order.pay or shop.order.cancel, though it doesn't explicitly contrast 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?

It gives one concrete usage trigger: 'Poll this after a payment_pending answer.' Beyond that there is no guidance on when to prefer this over shop.order.quote, shop.merchant.orders_list, or other order tools, so usage is implied rather than framed.

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