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

Annotations already mark it read-only and open-world, and the description adds useful behavioral context: no sign-in required and which specific order fields will be returned. It does not mention error behavior for mismatched postcodes, but the read-only annotation lowers the burden and this is still well above minimal.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the return fields and then gives the required inputs and auth condition. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only, two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how to call it, and the auth requirement. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool successfully.

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% and both parameters already carry clear descriptions (order number from confirmation email, delivery postcode/ZIP). The description only restates 'order number and delivery postcode' without adding per-parameter constraints, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 title 'Track an order' plus the description enumerates the exact return payload (order status, tracking number/URL, shipping method, line items) and the access condition (order number + postcode, no sign-in). This is specific enough to be told apart from a narrower sibling like get_express_delivery_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?

It gives a clear trigger: when an agent needs order-status/tracking details for an order using just the order number and delivery postcode, with no account login. It does not name when-not-to-use or point to an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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