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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds meaningful context by stating "No customer data" (PII exposure) and enumerating every terminal and in-progress state. It does not, however, say what happens with an unknown or expired key.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by two tight, non-redundant sentences. The state enumeration is long but is genuinely informative rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be explained, and annotations fully cover the safety profile. What an agent needs to call it correctly — the identifier source and the absence of PII — 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain where order_id and idempotency_key come from, but it leaves the interaction ambiguous — required parameters are technically 0, yet the tool is useless without one of them, and no precedence rule is given when both are supplied.

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?

"Returns only the state of the order" states a specific verb (returns) and resource (order state), and enumerates the exact values so the agent knows the granularity of the response. It also explicitly scopes out sibling data ("No customer data") and ties itself to create_order as the producer of the id.

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?

"Pass the order_id returned by create_order, or the idempotency_key you used" tells the agent exactly when and how this tool fits into the workflow after create_order. No explicit when-not guidance, but no sibling competes for this purpose either.

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