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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond annotations: it requires auth, only the caller's own orders are visible (a real access constraint), and it enumerates what the response contains including currency units.

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-loads purpose, then usage triggers, then return contents, then constraints and the alternative. Every sentence is functional with no filler, despite being fairly information-dense.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value documentation isn't required, yet the description still summarizes the returned fields usefully. Auth, visibility scope, and currency are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single required order_uuid. The description restates its provenance from buy_tickets and get_my_orders, which the schema description also provides, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 (Get), resource (status of an order), and scope (the authenticated user's own orders on the XP marketplace), keyed by order_uuid. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_my_orders, which handles the multi-order list case.

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 explicit when-to-use triggers ('right after a purchase', user asking about a specific order) plus concrete example phrasings. It also names the alternative to reach for when no order_uuid is available ('use get_my_orders for the recent list').

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