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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the possible status values returned, which matters because there is no output schema, and by implying that both parameters together identify the order. It does not mention auth requirements or not-found behavior.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the most important information (what is returned) is front-loaded. The parenthetical status list earns its place given the absent output schema, though the sentence reads as a caption fragment rather than an instruction.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, listing the possible statuses covers the main return-value gap. However, it omits what happens when the order number and email do not match, and gives no hint about privacy or verification implications of looking up an order by a third party's email.

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 50%: buyer_email is documented in the schema, order_number is not. The description names both parameters and conveys that they are used jointly as an identity pair, which is a small semantic addition beyond the schema, but it adds no format, range, or validation detail for order_number.

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 resource (an order) and precisely what is returned (its status), even enumerating the possible states: awaiting payment, paid, delivered, cancelled. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource and does not explicitly contrast with siblings like delivery_options or create_order, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives are named. The use case is only implied by the description of the return value; the agent must infer that this is the tracking/lookup tool rather than being told.

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