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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a pure read-only query against staging records and has no side effects. This aligns with and reinforces the 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 description is tightly organized into labeled sections with no filler. Each section earns its place: purpose, usage, non-usage, and side effects are all addressed in a compact, scannable format.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, when not to use it, and its side-effect profile, making it fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents order_id. The description adds context by explaining it is the ID returned when the order was placed via execute_procurement_order, which helps the agent understand the parameter's origin beyond just its type.

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 ('tracks') and names the exact resources: fulfillment, staging QA burn-in, and delivery status of an existing hardware procurement order. It also clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling execute_procurement_order by stating it is for existing orders.

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 explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, including the exact condition (after calling execute_procurement_order) and the alternative tool to use for new orders. This leaves no ambiguity for an agent deciding between tools.

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