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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is clearly a read-only lookup, but it never says whether the caller must be the buyer, whether a result/deliverable payload is included, or what happens for an unknown or unauthorized order_id. The status enumeration is useful domain context but not enough for a zero-annotation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical state list is dense and earns its words. It could be tightened further only by adding the missing usage routing, not by removing anything present.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the entity and the possible status values. It is still ambiguous about what 'result' returns (deliverable content, files, revision notes) and about caller permissions, leaving an agent to guess at the response shape.

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?

The single parameter order_id is fully documented in the schema as a UUID, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only a mild scoping hint that the id must reference a *service* order rather than a purchase or listing. Baseline 3 is appropriate for 100% schema coverage.

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 resource and operation: retrieves the status and result of an ordered service, and enumerates the possible states (pending, delivered, revision, accepted, disputed). That is far more informative than a tautology. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings like get_delivery or service_requests, so an agent must infer which one to call for which entity.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many sibling tools. The phrase 'a service you ordered' weakly implies the caller holds an order_id from order_service, but no prerequisites or routing guidance are stated.

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