kinematic_checkout_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral information. It clearly frames the operation as a read-only status check and explains the two states, which is useful. It does not disclose what happens for invalid orders, whether anything is mutated, or whether the provision token is returned only after payment.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and outcome states with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning, making the description compact and easy to parse.

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?

For a single-parameter query tool, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the operation, the input origin, and the two relevant outcomes. It does not detail the response format, but given the absence of an output schema and the simple status domain, this is a minor gap.

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 100%, and the order_id parameter already has a clear description: 'the kd- order id from kinematic_checkout.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Kinematic Drive checkout order') and names the two possible results: pending with pay instructions or paid with provision token. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like kinematic_status, but the status vocabulary and provision-token mention make the purpose reasonably distinct.

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 context is implied: the order_id comes from kinematic_checkout, so the agent can infer this is the follow-up status check after creating an order. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over kinematic_status or 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.