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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the payload is a reduced view that omits personal data and field values, which matters for privacy and for deciding what to show a user. It does not cover rate limits, polling behavior, or return shape.

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 short sentences with the scope constraint front-loaded and the use case second. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description conveys enough: it says what the status represents and which stages to report. Since no output schema exists, it could say a bit more about the returned status values or whether results are polled, but it is broadly sufficient.

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%, and both parameters carry detailed guidance (order_id from create_certificate_order; access_token returned once and never displayed). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific resource and scope: a shortened order status that deliberately excludes personal data and field values. This scoping implicitly separates it from the fuller get_certificate_order fetch, though that sibling is never named, so an agent must infer the contrast rather than being routed explicitly.

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?

'Używaj do informowania użytkownika o postępie realizacji' gives a clear intended context and enumerates the stages it covers (payment, certificate preparation, shipping). It stops short of naming when NOT to use this tool or pointing at get_certificate_order for full details, so exclusions are missing.

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