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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered, yet the description still adds value: it discloses that the response interprets the status ('what the status means') and indicates terminality ('whether it is final'), which shapes how an agent should act on the result. It stops short of giving polling cadence or field-level return detail, keeping it below a 5.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the when-to-use cue. Nothing redundant; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned semantically (status, interpretation, finality) and when to call it. It could be marginally more complete by hinting at the response shape or polling interval, but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already says 'The orderId from list_orders.', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline for a fully documented single-parameter schema.

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 and resource: retrieve the status of a single order, plus the meaning of that status and whether it is final. That scope distinguishes it from list_orders, which the schema also points back to as the source of orderId. No sibling is named directly in the description, but the singular-vs-list distinction is clear.

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?

'Poll this after giving the user a checkout link' gives an explicit trigger and even the interaction pattern (polling) that selects this tool. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous for such a narrow tool.

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