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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the two-parameter pair functions as an authorization check (order number + checkout email), and the 'only that order is ever returned' line tells the agent no other orders leak into the response — important for a lookup keyed on customer identity.

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?

One dense sentence plus a short constraint clause — nothing wasted, and the return contents are front-loaded before the requirements. The opening is grammatically incomplete ('The stage of a DrMaker3D order...' with no verb), which costs a small amount of clarity, but the information density is high.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the response — and it does, listing stage, ship-by date, arrival window, and tracking-when-shipped. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and 100% parameter documentation, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly; only response shape details (types, date formats) are absent.

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% with both parameters documented (email = used at checkout, order_number = e.g. DM1015), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description largely restates those two fields, adding only the example format inline. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured data already documents every parameter.

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 names the exact resource (a DrMaker3D order) and enumerates what the caller learns: stage values (received, printing, finishing, shipped, delivered), ship-by day, arrival window, and tracking number. The opening is an elliptical noun phrase rather than a verb, so it leans on the title for the action, but the content is specific enough that an agent immediately knows what comes back.

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 states the prerequisites plainly (order number like DM1015 plus the checkout email) and constrains the result: 'only that order is ever returned.' No sibling tool overlaps with order tracking, so no exclusions are needed. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use this when a customer asks about order status,' but that context is obvious from the resource.

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