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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the null behavior, the ambiguity between a wrong id and a just-submitted order, and the advice to poll again briefly. It also mentions what the response contains: status, operation, and explorer link.

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 compact and information-dense, covering status values, response contents, and null semantics in two sentences. The opening 'No version argument' is slightly cryptic but does not waste much space.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the return elements and the key edge case. It could be more complete by describing the exact response shape, but the essential information an agent needs to call and interpret the tool is present.

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 input schema already fully describes the single orderId parameter, and the description adds little beyond restating that the lookup is by id. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 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?

States clearly that it retrieves the status of a single order by id, enumerating the possible status values. It is unambiguous against sibling list tools like get_pending_orders, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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?

Provides concrete usage guidance about null results: a null order can mean either a bad id or a recently submitted order, so the agent should poll again before treating it as nonexistent. It gives clear context for the read operation, but does not discuss when to prefer a sibling tool.

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