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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this ('Does not change the order') while adding a real behavioral trait not in the structured data: results are gated on both identifiers matching. It stops short of describing what status values come back or any rate limiting.

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?

Three short sentences: what it does, that it is non-mutating, and the matching precondition. Front-loaded with the purpose and no wasted clauses.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety and the authentication gate. The only gap is that it does not hint at what the returned status looks like, which matters somewhat given there is no output schema.

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 only 50% — the email parameter is undocumented in the schema — and the description compensates by specifying that it must be the email used at checkout, plus that order numbers start with 'R'. That is meaningful added semantics beyond the single schema example.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Read the status of a BringMeThat order'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling tools create_checkout_link, get_menu and search_restaurants. An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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 the concrete precondition for use (order number starting with R plus the checkout email, both required to match), which is effectively the usage rule. It does not name alternatives or explicitly exclude scenarios, but the siblings are unrelated operations so no routing ambiguity remains.

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