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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses intentionally omitted fields (contact, address, notes, line items) and describes the state-driven polling contract. This gives the agent realistic expectations without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and key polling instruction are front-loaded, and the omission disclosure is compact and useful.

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 the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return fields. It covers purpose, source of order_id, polling lifecycle, and response omissions, making it complete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema already describes order_id as the machine-facing orderId from place_order. The description reinforces that origin and adds the sandbox simulation use case, but it does not materially expand parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('check') and resource ('payment and fulfillment state for an order created by place_order'), plus a secondary use case for signed sandbox simulations. This clearly distinguishes it from creation (place_order), lookup (get_venue), and validation (validate_cart) tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to poll ('while state is awaiting_payment') and when to stop by enumerating terminal states. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly distinct and the polling guidance is concrete.

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