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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'transitions only' and reinforces the auth requirement, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as ordering, pagination, or filtering. This is adequate but not enriched.

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?

Three short clauses, each contributing distinct information: what the tool returns, how it relates to order_track, and what authorization is needed. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 small read-only tool with full schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It provides the key conceptual context and prerequisite, though it could have more explicitly distinguished from order_track or order_list.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's mention of agent_id repeats the schema requirement without adding new semantic detail, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 identifies a specific resource ('Lifecycle timeline') and clarifies it is 'transitions only,' which the title's 'Get' confirms. It references order_track as a paired tool, but does not explicitly contrast itself with other sibling tools like order_list, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase 'Pair with order_track' provides a clear usage context and the requirement 'Requires owning agent_id' states a prerequisite. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance against alternatives, but the context is clear enough for basic selection.

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