checkout_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful semantics about the status values, but doesn't mention the return structure, whether polling is needed, or auth requirements. The value added to the safety profile is minimal.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the key concept (approval status) and its possible values.

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?

Given a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main status values and the fact that placed includes order_number and failed includes detail. It lacks explanation of what approval_id is and how to obtain it, but the output schema likely handles return details.

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 0%, so the description should explain the required approval_id parameter. It does not define its format or source. However, with only one required parameter and an output schema, the burden is lower; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource (an approval) and enumerates its possible states, which tells the agent this is a status-reporting tool. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling checkout_request, but the specific enumeration and phrasing distinguish it from a generic status check.

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 description implies usage (checking the state of a checkout approval), but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like checkout_request or orders. No when-not or prerequisites are stated.

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