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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the authorization model ('shown only to whoever proves they placed it') and a critical anti-enumeration behavior: an unknown order and wrong proof return the same answer. That tells the agent how to interpret an ambiguous response without needing to guess.

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, front-loaded with the usage trigger before the mechanics, and every clause carries information. The middle sentence is dense and slightly run-on, but nothing is wasted.

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 compensates by enumerating the response contents and their granularity (windows with closing dates). Combined with the credential and disclosure behavior, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 per-parameter meaning is already handled. The description adds value by presenting the two parameters as an either/or credential scheme (token alone, or reference plus e-mail), which is not stated as a single rule anywhere in the schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource and names the actual buyer question it answers ('where their order is or what they can still claim'), then enumerates the returned content: status, seller-recorded tracking, and each return/claim window with its closing date. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_purchase or check_availability.

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?

The opening clause gives an explicit trigger condition (a buyer asking about order location or remaining claim rights) and specifies the two credential paths, which functions as a usage precondition. No sibling alternative or when-not-to-use case is named, 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.