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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a read-only lookup and specifies what information is available ('status' and 'UPS tracking number once shipped'), but it does not mention error behavior, authorization needs, or whether the operation has side effects. The 'Look up' wording implies non-mutating behavior, but the description could be more explicit.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and result, then immediately provides the usage condition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter lookup with an output schema available, the description covers the main purpose, the statuses returned, and the intended use case. The main gap is the lack of job_id semantics, but the low complexity and self-explanatory parameter name keep this from being a major deficiency.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented job_id parameter. It does not explain what job_id represents, its format, or how an agent should obtain it from a user's order query. The parameter name is self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no semantic value beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('current status of a print job'), and enumerates the exact statuses returned (submitted, approved, printing, QC, shipped) plus the UPS tracking number. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools submit_print_job and validate_stl, which involve different actions.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user asks about an order they placed with HardCopy Labs.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the given context is clear enough for an agent to route this lookup correctly.

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