Check audit order status (free)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: free and read-only, payment detection reads Base USDC transfer logs, detection can lag the chain by minutes, and unpaid orders expire. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs to avoid misinterpreting a pending order as a failure.

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-loaded with the most important qualifiers ('FREE, read-only') followed by status semantics and then caveats. It is dense but nearly every sentence carries operational value; the status-value enumeration is slightly list-like but not wasteful.

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 one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return-state vocabulary (pending_payment, paid: true, delivered), the delivery channel (emailed report), and timing caveats. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it and interpret the result is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single order_id parameter already documents its origin and format with a pattern and example. The description reinforces that the id comes from order_endpoint_audit but adds no syntax or validation meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: poll the status of an audit order. It also anchors the resource to its origin ('created with order_endpoint_audit'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling that creates orders and from get_network_decomposition.

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 explicit operational guidance: poll after paying, wait 2-5 minutes before assuming a problem, and expect unpaid orders to expire within 24h. It also names the creating tool, so an agent knows the sequence of calls without inference.

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