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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing polling semantics, the absence of background tracking, the absence of notifications, and the need to re-invoke on demand until a terminal state. These are exactly the behaviors an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, what is reported, and the polling constraint, with the purpose front-loaded. No filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the possible reported outcomes (accepted, on its way, delivered, declined) and the polling lifecycle, which is everything an agent needs to interpret and re-call the 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 coverage is 100%, so orderId's origin ('returned by place_order') is already documented in the schema and the description mostly echoes it. It adds no guidance on clientId beyond what the schema already says, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (check) and resource (order status) and scopes it to 'an order the user has already placed', which separates it cleanly from place_order and prepare_order. It even enumerates the states it reports.

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?

Clearly establishes the usage context: call after place_order, when the user asks, and only until the order is finished. It stops short of naming sibling tools to avoid, but the polling condition and terminal-state cutoff give an agent enough to use it correctly.

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