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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the token is private and comes from the shopper's page, the ETA is returned only 'when known' (i.e. may be absent), and no personal details are exposed — useful for deciding whether the output is safe to surface.

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, no filler. The capability statement comes first, the required input and privacy caveat second, which is the right order for an agent scanning definitions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the remaining pieces an agent needs — what the call reads, what credential it requires, and that no PII is exposed. Nothing material is missing for a one-parameter read tool.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the jos1_ prefix, so the description is not required to carry this. It restates the token's origin and adds the 'private' qualifier (a mild hint about handling), but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Read where a JENNi order stands') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: status, delivery ETA, courier tracking, and charge state. The read-only, per-order framing makes it unmistakable against the checkout-creation siblings (create_checkout, complete_checkout, start_checkout), which all mutate a cart rather than inspect an existing order.

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?

Gives the precondition for calling it — the private order_token from the shopper's JENNi order page — which is the main practical gate on usage. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative, but no sibling offers order-status lookup, so the risk of misrouting is low.

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