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

The description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it blocks for up to five minutes, returns immediately upon settlement, and prevents sending messages while waiting. This is rich, actionable transparency that critically informs agent behavior.

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 slightly long but each sentence carries essential information, including the blocking behavior, timeout, and message restriction. The critical warning is highlighted with 'IMPORTANT' and the purpose is front-loaded. It is well-organized despite being a single paragraph.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return behavior (pending_payment vs. settled) and the timeout/retry logic. It covers the key operational details for a payment status check, though it does not specify the full return object structure, which remains a minor gap.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters with detailed descriptions (order_id, wait_seconds with defaults and maximum). The description adds behavioral context but does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to check whether an order has been paid. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_order_details, which likely provides broader order information. The specific focus on payment status and the blocking behavior make the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: call once rather than polling, re-call if pending_payment, and ensure the payment link is sent before blocking. It also warns against sending a message while waiting, giving clear when-to-use and how-to-use context.

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