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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the explicit state progression (recibido → preparando → en camino → entregado) tells the agent what values to expect, and the token requirement signals an authorization constraint. It does not describe error behavior for invalid/expired tokens, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the state sequence, then the input prerequisite. No filler or repetition.

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 usefully indicates the return contains both the status and the order's products. It could say more about what product details come back or what happens on an invalid token, but for a two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete.

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%, so both parameters are already documented with format hints (NAO-7K2Q9X) and provenance from crear_pedido. The description merely restates that provenance, adding no new syntax or constraints, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Consulta) and resource (estado de un pedido de NAO), plus the secondary payload (sus productos). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like crear_pedido or ver_carrito, which create or inspect a different resource.

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 establishes the prerequisite context — you need the id and token returned by crear_pedido, so it is clearly positioned as a follow-up to order creation. It does not state exclusions (e.g., what to do if the token was lost, or that it cannot look up other users' orders), so it falls 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.