order_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying it never resubmits or consumes and that cancellation overrides historical PAID, which goes beyond annotations. However, these phrases are terse and do not fully explain the reconciliation behavior or edge-case semantics.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core operation stated first and qualifying behavior second. It is appropriately sized, though its terseness borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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?

The tool has two required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, so the description carries substantial explanatory burden. It does not explain the parameters, the return value, authentication/account context, or how to interpret the PAID/cancellation behavior, leaving key context for correct invocation 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 0% for two required parameters ('account' and 'attempt_id'), so the description must compensate. It does not mention either parameter or explain what 'account' and 'attempt_id' mean, leaving the caller with no semantic guidance beyond the bare names.

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 description states a verb and resources ('Reconcile the exact order, cashier and wallet'), but 'reconcile' is ambiguous for a tool named order_status and does not plainly say it retrieves or checks order status. It hints at differentiation from payment tools by saying it never resubmits or consumes, but the core purpose remains somewhat vague.

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 provides behavioral reassurance ('Never resubmits or consumes') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like order_pay, checkout_submit, or checkout_quote. The edge case 'cancellation overrides historical PAID' adds context but is not framed as usage guidance.

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