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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond this: it does not say what status values can be returned, how unknown order numbers are handled, or whether the response is a snapshot. For a lookup tool whose whole value lies in its return semantics, this is a notable gap.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the key qualifier (by order number) comes first. Its brevity is close to under-specification, but as structure it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: the agent knows what to pass and that the tool is safe. It is incomplete in that nothing is said about the returned status domain or error behavior, which matters since no output schema documents the response.

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 description must carry the burden. It does clarify that order_id is an order number used for the lookup, which is meaningful beyond the bare 'string' type. However, it gives no format, length, or example for that identifier, so the agent is still guessing at the accepted syntax.

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 states a specific verb and resource: look up the status of an 下单意向 (order intent) by order number. This is clearer than the bare tool name because it names the object being queried. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling create_order_intent or explain how 'order intent status' differs from an 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 implicitly tells the agent that an order number is needed, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. There is no mention of prerequisites such as the intent needing to already exist, or of what to do when the lookup is not applicable.

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