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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful context about async completion ('once the expert ... completes the work') and the full structured deliverable, but does not disclose what happens if the work is not yet complete (e.g., status response), error behavior, or any rate limits. This is adequate 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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant phrasing. Every clause adds information: purpose, return payload, completion condition, and accepted identifiers.

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 two-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the purpose, identifier types, and return deliverable. It does not explicitly state the behavior when the request is still in progress, which is a minor gap, but the output schema presumably defines the response structure. Overall, the description is sufficient.

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 already covers 100% of the parameter descriptions, including the 'always returns the latest revision' behavior for referenceCode. The tool description adds the 'or' relationship between the two identifiers, but this is marginal value beyond the schema's per-parameter explanations. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the status') and resource ('previously submitted request'), clearly distinguishing it as the retrieval counterpart to ordering/revision tools. It names the two accepted identifier types (sessionId or order reference code), making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 the tool should be used after a request has been submitted, and it states both supported identifier formats. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, but among siblings this is the only status-checking tool, so the context is clear.

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