order_authorization_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the login requirement, but does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens when the order is unauthorized, whether it exposes sensitive payment data, or what errors can occur.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of omitting useful context, but there is no wasted wording.

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 is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return-value explanation is not required. However, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description should do more to explain authentication behavior and how the state result should be interpreted.

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% and the single order_id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description says only 'of an order,' which weakly implies order_id identifies the target but adds no format, source, or constraint details beyond the parameter name.

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 names a specific resource and state: 'Payment authorization state of an order.' It implicitly contrasts with sibling authorize_order, which performs authorization rather than reporting it, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 only guidance is 'Requires login.' There is no explanation of when to call this instead of authorize_order, order_detail, checkout_payment_options, or other payment-related siblings, and no exclusion conditions are given.

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