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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: tracking numbers appear only for registered mail, tracking history is chronological German tracking, and the response includes delivery estimate and cancellation availability. It also explains the awaiting_partner_fix state. No contradiction with 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?

The German description is well-structured and front-loaded with core behavior before conditional routing. However, the entire text is repeated verbatim in English, doubling the length without adding new information and reducing conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and status-dependent next steps. The main gap is the unexplained reasoning parameter; otherwise an agent has sufficient context to invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the orderId or reasoning parameters. While orderId is inferable from its name and UUID format, the optional reasoning field is entirely opaque, leaving the agent unsure what to pass or why.

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 concrete verb ('Liefert'/'Returns') and names the exact resource: the current status of an order. It also enumerates the specific payload fields (German chronological tracking history, tracking number for registered mail, estimated delivery, cancellation availability), which clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like order_send or order_cancel.

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 provides explicit conditional routing: on status awaiting_partner_fix, call order_fix_resubmit; while cancellable is true, order_cancel can still stop the send. This gives an agent clear when-to-use and when-to-hand-off guidance beyond simply invoking the tool.

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