Order status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the optional bounded wait until a target status is reached, and that state is local and kept current by the running session — useful behavior an agent cannot get from annotations alone.

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?

Front-loads the returned contents before the waiting behavior in two dense sentences with no filler. It is somewhat run-on in the first sentence, but each clause (returned sections, next_steps, bounded wait) earns its place.

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 usefully enumerates the returned sections and the next_steps routing hint, and it explains the wait semantics. Pitch and pagination details are absent but not critical for a single-order read, so coverage is close to complete.

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 schema already documents order_id origin, the wait_for enum, and wait_seconds bounds/default. The description largely restates the wait_for example already present in the schema, so it adds little beyond the baseline expected when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (show) and resource (one order) and enumerates exactly what is returned — status, quote/validation, funding, purchase, tracking, dispute, ruling, refund, settlement, timeline, next_steps. The singular 'one order' plus the sibling list_orders makes the scope unambiguous without opening either schema.

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 clear context: use it to inspect a single order and get next_steps telling which tool to call next, and it explains the wait_for case ('after request_quote'). It does not explicitly name when NOT to use it versus list_orders or a more targeted sibling, but the intended usage is easy to infer.

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