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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: this is a post-timeout reconciliation/confirmation read that reports existence, amount, and state, which is what an agent needs to decide whether to retry a checkout.

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 the action and its purpose, then the timeout guidance, then a Korean mirror of the same content. The bilingual duplication is redundant for a single-language agent but the sentences themselves are tight and every English sentence 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the three things the call confirms (created or not, amount, state). Combined with 100% parameter coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds lookup semantics the schema does not: resolution works via either order_id or idempotency_key. Minor tension exists because the description implies either key suffices while the schema marks order_id required, but the added lookup meaning is real.

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 ('Check order status') and enumerates exactly what it resolves: whether an order was created, for how much, and in what state. The '(read, action=commerce.order_status)' tag plus the explicit contrast with re-ordering makes it distinguishable from commerce_checkout and commerce_build_cart.

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 a concrete trigger condition: 'Use this instead of re-ordering when an order request timed out.' That is a real when-to-use rule pointing at the alternative behavior (re-ordering). It does not name a sibling tool or state any when-not case, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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