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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: payment happens at an external operator, MCP never accepts card data, and the building photo can be added later or sent after payment. It stops short of describing rate limits, re-invocation semantics, or link expiry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the page behavior, then the hard usage constraint. Every sentence carries information, though the sentence about the building photo is somewhat tangential to the tool's invocation decision.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what is returned (a secure link) and the downstream flow the user experiences, plus the critical consent precondition and the card-data exclusion. It does not cover link validity/expiry or failure modes, which keeps it from a 5.

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% — both order_id and access_token are already documented in the schema, including the warning to never expose the token. The description adds no parameter-level detail on top, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (returns), a specific resource (secure payment page link), and the scope ('kompletnego zamówienia'), making it clearly distinct from siblings like create_certificate_order or get_certificate_order_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?

Gives an explicit, strongly-conditioned when-to-call ('WYWOŁUJ WYŁĄCZNIE po tym, jak pokażesz użytkownikowi cenę i dostaniesz od niego wyraźną zgodę'), which effectively defines a when-not as well. No sibling/alternative is named for the cases where this should not be used, so it falls just 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.