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

The description adds only that the email must be attached to the order, but does not clarify side effects, authorization requirements, error behavior, or what the response will contain. Annotations are not helpful here because they are all false/neutral, so the description still carries the full burden and is insufficient.

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 only two short sentences and contains no filler. Both sentences earn their place: one states purpose and the other states required inputs. It is easy to parse and front-loads the key information.

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 lookup, the description might be minimally usable, but it still lacks clarity about what status information is returned, what errors or indications apply, and how this relates to other order-facing tools like start_checkout or create_payment_link. Since there is no output schema, more context would be needed.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description must clarify the parameters. It does partly compensate by mapping 'order number' to order_id and clarifying that email means 'the email on it,' i.e., the email associated with the order. This adds useful context beyond the raw schema.

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 indicates that the tool returns an order's current position/status, and the resource (order) is identifiable. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_product and get_reviews, though the phrasing is informal and could more explicitly say 'returns order status.'

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 gives an important usage precondition: the caller must provide the order number and the email used on the order. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or what to do if the email/order_id combination is invalid.

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