zunivo_check_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Check' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the description discloses what will be returned: status (unpaid/paid) and on-chain payments. It does not mention error cases or side effects, but for a status-check tool this is adequate.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Check') and efficiently packs the resource, status values, and payment details into a compact structure.

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 1-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete, covering both key return aspects: status and settling payments. It does not describe error behavior or exact response structure, but those are not necessary for this level of complexity.

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 fully describes the only parameter orderId as 'order id returned by zunivo_create_payment_link', providing clear semantic context. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the explicit tie to a sibling tool adds valuable meaning beyond the bare parameter name.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the resource ('payment link / order'), then clearly enumerates the returned information: status (unpaid or paid) and the on-chain payments that settled it. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zunivo_create_payment_link and zunivo_spend_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 implies usage: after creating a payment link, check the order status using the returned orderId. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like zunivo_paid_fetch or zunivo_spend_status, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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