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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation returning status, ETA, and tracking, but lacks details on response structure, potential errors, or required permissions. Adequate for a simple read tool, but not rich.

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 entire description is one concise sentence that front-loads the action and key data points. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 lookup, the description covers the key return values (status, ETA, tracking). It does not explain how to obtain order_id, but sibling tools like list_orders likely provide that. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by listing return items.

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 has only one parameter, order_id, with no description coverage. The parameter name is self-explanatory, and the description references 'a UFP order,' but does not explain the format or source of order_id. Minimal addition beyond the schema, but the parameter is unambiguous.

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 checks status, ETA, and tracking for a single UFP order. The verb 'check' is specific, and the resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_orders.

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 it is for a single order's status, but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like list_orders. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided.

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