Get order status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so safety is covered upstream. The description adds genuinely useful semantics that annotations cannot express: paymentStatus and executionStatus are independent axes and SETTLED payment with IN_PROGRESS execution is a normal state. It still omits the set of possible status values and the backoff/rate expectations behind "poll with pauses".

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, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the two facts most likely to cause an agent error. No filler, nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description wisely spends its words on what the returned statuses mean relative to each other and on the costly mistake to avoid. It leaves out the enumerated status values and any terminal-state guidance, which an agent would still need to reason about completion.

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%, so the description would need to carry meaning for orderId, and it says nothing about format or origin. In practice a single required string named orderId with a ^osmm_order_ pattern is largely self-explanatory, so the gap is small but real.

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?

"Poll an order" names a specific verb and resource, and the polling framing distinguishes it from one-shot siblings like get_quote or get_service. It stops short of explicitly routing against any named sibling, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: poll with pauses rather than hammering, and do not re-pay while status is SETTLEMENT_PENDING. That is actionable when-to/how-to guidance, though it never states when to prefer cancel_order or request_refill over continued polling.

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