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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: 'Requires a JWT,' which tells the agent authentication is mandatory before invocation. It does not describe what status values are returned, but the auth disclosure is real added value.

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 short clauses with no padding. The auth requirement is front-loaded. The parenthetical is slightly cluttered but still compact and informative rather than wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the returned status looks like or its possible values, which an agent would want for a status-check tool. The auth requirement and the legacy nature of the endpoint are covered, but the return semantics are left entirely implicit.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the bare 'reference' string parameter carries no documentation. The description compensates partially by clarifying that the reference identifies an order, but it does not specify format, source, or where the reference comes from. For a low-coverage schema, this is only adequate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: retrieving the status of a Network order by its reference. The title ('Check your Network order') reinforces this. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like network_join or network_me, and the trailing parenthetical about retired plans muddies rather than sharpens the purpose.

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 parenthetical ('history — new Network plans are retired; joining is free') implies this tool is for looking up legacy orders rather than initiating new ones, which hints at when to use it. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance, leaving the agent to infer that network_join is the modern path.

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