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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, non-destructive), the description adds real value: it enumerates the status lifecycle, describes exactly what is returned when delivered (QR, LPA, ICCID, install links), and discloses a rate limit of once per 5 seconds. These are traits annotations do not convey.

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?

Dense and front-loaded—status meanings first, then return contents, then the rate limit. No filler sentences, though the status enumeration could be trimmed if brevity were prioritized.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly compensates by explaining the return payload and status semantics, plus the rate limit. It is largely complete for a read tool whose params and safety profile are already covered by schema and annotations.

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%, with both order_id and order_token documented as values returned by create_order. The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full burden.

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 description makes clear it retrieves order status and per-eSIM delivery details, with the resource (order) obvious and the semantics of each status spelled out. It does not explicitly state 'retrieves an order by id' or differentiate against siblings like create_order/cancel_order, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied—an agent infers it should call this to check status or obtain delivered eSIM credentials. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or references to the alternatives (create_order, cancel_order), and the rate-limit line is a constraint rather than usage guidance.

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