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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by explaining the auth path (Bearer mo1_… or the ref argument) and the state-machine consequence that a failed/cancelled payment reopens the cart. It does not state whether polling is rate-limited or how stale the state can be, but the meaningful behavioral additions are there.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core payload (payment state) is front-loaded before the retry flow. The opening sentence is a verbless fragment, which makes it slightly telegraphic, but nothing is redundant.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (state, last attempt, next step), how to authenticate, and what the outcome implies for place_order. Missing only edge details such as behavior when the reference is unknown or invalid.

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 only one optional parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents ref fully (format, source, fallback condition). The description restates the same auth-or-ref choice rather than adding new meaning, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome for a fully documented single parameter.

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 the resource (the order's payment) and enumerates what it reports: state (unpaid, pending, paid), last attempt, and next step. That is concrete enough to separate it from cancel_payment or order_history. It is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb ('check/retrieve'), which costs it the top score.

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 only implied: the reader can infer this is the status probe used after a payment attempt, and that place_order is the follow-up when the payment failed or was cancelled. There is no explicit 'use this when…' clause and no mention of when to prefer cancel_payment or order_history instead.

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