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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns transient status while the order settles, then the actual JSON report once delivered, and it is intended to be polled repeatedly. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is three short sentences with no filler: it states the resource, the behavior over time, the polling cadence, and the cost. Every sentence adds useful information and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description compensates by stating the two possible response phases: status while pending and the report JSON once delivered. It omits explicit guidance that orderKey should come from buy_flash_audit and does not enumerate possible status values, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to poll correctly.

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 carries some burden, but the single parameter orderKey is largely self-explanatory and its format is fully specified by the schema pattern. The description's mention of 'an x402 order' implies orderKey identifies that order, but it does not explicitly state that the key should come from buy_flash_audit.

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?

The title 'Collect a Flash Audit order' plus the description clearly define the operation: return the status of an existing x402 order while it settles, then the report JSON once DELIVERED. This distinguishes it from sibling buy_flash_audit, which creates the order, by describing the collection/status side of the lifecycle.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: poll every 10-15 seconds until the order reaches DELIVERED. It implies this tool is used after an order is placed, but it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or say when not to use it.

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