get_purchase_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that this is a read-only operation (no side effects), which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a pollable endpoint, what happens if purchase_id is invalid, or if there are any rate limits. The 'wait' instruction implies polling behavior but without specifics.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core function, and each sentence adds critical value. It covers purpose, usage conditions, prerequisite actions, and handling of result states without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what to do with the return values (pending/failed), but lacks detail on the return format structure (e.g., is it just a string or an object?). Given the output schema is absent, a minimal description of the return shape would enhance it further, but overall it's strong.

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?

The schema only has purchase_id with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds critical meaning by stating that purchase_id is required and, more importantly, how to obtain it if missing (call list_purchases first). This goes beyond the schema by telling the agent how to source the parameter, which is essential for successful invocation.

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 states the tool's function: to get purchase status by ID and what it returns (paid and payment.status with possible values). It differentiates from siblings by specifying it's for purchase status, not payment status or choice status, and it provides context for when to use it (after create_purchase or when user asks about order status).

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 gives explicit when to call it (after create_purchase or user queries), what to do if purchase_id is missing (call list_purchases first), and how to handle results (if pending wait, if failed do not retry). This is clear routing and conditional logic that differentiates from alternatives.

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