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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate read-only behavior. It adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns a ready-made Polish question and allowed values, and it explicitly says the backend decides what is missing, preventing the agent from guessing. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence front-loads what the tool returns and its purpose; the second sentence adds a critical behavioral constraint. Every part earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return content (missing fields, Polish question, allowed values) and the expected agent behavior. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning, but it doesn't need to because the schema already explains order_id and access_token, including the security note to never show the token to the user. 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 a specific verb ('Zwraca' = returns) and resource ('listę pól, których brakuje' = list of missing fields) plus the purpose ('żeby zamówienie było gotowe do płatności' = for order to be ready for payment). It also distinguishes from siblings like get_certificate_order or get_certificate_order_status by focusing specifically on missing fields needed for payment readiness.

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 gives clear context: call this to learn what fields are missing for payment, and the backend is the authority. The instruction 'nie zgaduj i nie pytaj o pola spoza tej listy' (don't guess and don't ask about fields outside this list) provides practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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