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

With no annotations, the description takes on disclosure duty and does so well: it states there is no background tracking, no notification, and that repeated calls are required until a terminal status. This goes beyond the schema and prevents the agent from assuming push updates or caching.

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 compact sentences front-load the core action, then add return semantics and polling behavior. No filler or repeated schema content beyond a useful reminder of the order-number source.

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?

Given a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the needed lifecycle: when to call, what statuses are reported, and when to stop. Minor omissions like error/not-found behavior are not critical for selecting and invoking this tool.

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 already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including the orderId source and the clientId/restaurant-single-restaurant rule. The description adds little beyond restating the orderId origin, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 clear verb ('Check') and resource ('current status of an order'), and differentiates from siblings by specifying it is for orders already placed via place_order, not for preparing or placing orders. The description enumerates what it reports (accepted, on way, finished), leaving no ambiguity.

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 usage context: it is for orders already placed, uses the orderId returned by place_order, and should be polled only when the user asks and only until finished. It does not name sibling alternatives directly, but the placement-vs-status distinction is implied.

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