check_order_status

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the possible outcome states (payment landed, offer created, mint completed, failed), which is valuable. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the verb 'check' strongly implies a safe operation, and the description adds context beyond a mere status label.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the core function, listing possible returns, and providing usage context with an alternative. There is no redundant or vague language.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It also addresses the distinction from check_domains, making it complete for its simplicity.

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?

The schema already covers the sole parameter 'domain' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying 'for a domain you tried to register', which clarifies that the domain must be one involved in a registration attempt, a nuance not in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: checking backend order status for a domain registration attempt on xrpdomains.xyz. It lists specific return states (payment landed, offer created, mint completed, failed) and explicitly differentiates from the sibling check_domains by noting it is 'deeper' and shows order status.

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 trigger scenarios with user queries ('did my X.xrp registration go through?') and directly compares to check_domains, which shows availability. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names an alternative.

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