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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value by disclosing the derivation logic: status is computed from the invoice plus cancelled quantities rather than read from a status label. It still says nothing about permissions, side effects, or what the returned status looks like, which is a meaningful gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

It is short and the key rule is front-loaded, but the sentence fragments are grammatically incomplete and the Dutch translation duplicates the same content for no functional gain. Nothing is wasted, yet the structure is more cryptic than economical.

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?

For a tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits the two things an agent most needs: what the parameters mean and what status values come back. The derivation rule is helpful but far from sufficient.

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 0% and both agentId and orderId are undocumented in the schema. The description never mentions either parameter, so it does not compensate at all for the coverage gap; the agent must guess whether orderId is a numeric ID, a reference, or something else.

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 name and the phrase 'Status from the invoice and the cancelled quantities' point at reading an order's status, but there is no verb and no explicit statement of what the tool returns. It reads more as a data-source rule than a description of an action, leaving the agent to infer 'get order status' from the name.

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 description excludes two data sources ('not from the status label and not from local bookkeeping'), which is useful negative guidance, but it never says when to call this tool or how it relates to siblings such as gnv_checkout_place or gnv_refund_request. No positive trigger condition is given.

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