check_filing_order_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the two-stage state model (payment, then extraction) and the conditional output (encrypted official PDF download URL only when both complete), which the annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the action and scope front-loaded and the return condition following. Nothing repeats the tool title or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does explain the key return value (the PDF URL) and the gating condition for receiving it. It stops short of enumerating the possible status values an agent would see before completion (pending / paid / extracted / failed), which would be the last missing piece for a polling 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% — order_sn's format and the api_key/Guest Trial behavior are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the payment and extraction status of a filing retrieval or credit purchase order'), which no sibling covers — create_filing_order creates, this one polls status. The distinction from the sibling set is clear without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description makes clear this is a post-order lookup ('Once paid and extracted...'), but it never says when to call it versus create_filing_order, nor whether polling is expected or how soon after ordering. Adequate, but the agent has to infer the workflow position.

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