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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the content returned is conditional on payment state, with a watermarked preview until acceptance. It stops short of describing failure modes (unknown order, unauthorized access).

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, and the two conditional outcomes are front-loaded so the agent immediately knows what to expect from the call.

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 usefully describes the returned artifact and its two forms, which is the main thing an agent needs. It omits error/edge behavior for an unpaid, nonexistent, or foreign order, leaving a modest gap for a one-parameter read tool.

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 0%, so the description is the only place order_id could be explained — and it isn't. The parameter name is largely self-describing and the schema supplies a strict UUID pattern, which limits the damage, but the description adds no meaning about which order id is expected.

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 (return) and resource (deliverable), and clarifies that the returned artifact differs by payment state. Sibling differentiation is only implicit — it never names accept_and_pay or get_order_status as the relevant alternatives, so an agent must infer the relationship from 'once paid'.

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 implies when each variant applies (paid vs awaiting acceptance), which gives useful context for interpreting the result. However, it never states prerequisites, what to do if payment hasn't happened, or that accept_and_pay is the tool that transitions the state.

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