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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns (status, conditional booking_id, voucher readiness) but does not cover error handling, authorization requirements, or whether the operation is strictly read-only. The core behavior is clear, but edge cases are omitted.

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 description is compact, front-loads the primary output details, and ends with a clear usage directive. No wasted words; every sentence provides useful content.

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?

The tool is a simple read operation with two required params and no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return values and use case. It lacks error/edge-case details, but the core context for selection and invocation is sufficiently covered.

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% and the description does not explain either parameter. While 'order_id' is fairly self-explanatory, 'token' is ambiguous (e.g., authentication token vs payment token) and the description provides no clarification or guidance beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves order status with specific possible values (aguardando_pagamento, reservado, cancelado, falhou), plus booking_id and voucher readiness. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_voucher or cancel_booking by focusing on payment confirmation and reservation status.

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?

The description explicitly says to use it to track whether payment confirmed the reservation, giving clear context. It does not mention alternative tools for when other statuses are needed, but the stated use case is specific and actionable.

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