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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what the call returns (status, ETA, tracking) despite there being no output schema, though it says nothing about error behavior for unknown order IDs or auth requirements.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource and with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 read tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile and which has no output schema, naming the returned fields makes the definition nearly self-sufficient. The only real gap is how to supply or obtain a valid order_id.

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% and the single order_id parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not state the ID's format, source, or where an agent obtains it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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') against a specific resource ('a UFP order') and enumerates the returned facets (status, ETA, tracking). The singular 'an order' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_orders, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 requirement for a single known order_id is implied, which weakly separates this from list_orders for discovery. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so guidance stays at the implied level.

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