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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the authentication header requirement, the forbidden response for non-buyer/seller callers, and the decoded-boolean representation instead of a raw state number. This gives the agent actionable expectations about behavior and failure modes.

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 three sentences and every sentence earns its place: return payload, authorization constraint, and read-only guarantee. Information is front-loaded with the primary purpose before the access caveat.

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 tool with a fully documented input schema and an output schema present, the description covers the key behavioral constraints: auth, role-based access, read-only semantics, and what data is returned. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents both orderId and currency. The description adds little beyond the schema except noting currency semantics are shared with search_products, which is a minor cross-reference; this meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource: the current status of one Resollo order. It enumerates the statuses (reserved, dispatched, paid, received, rejected, closed), notes decoded booleans rather than a raw number, and mentions carrier/tracking and total price, which fully disambiguates it from the sibling tools.

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 provides clear usage context by stating the caller must be the buyer or seller and that authorization is required, plus it explicitly notes read-only behavior. It does not compare with sibling tools, but no other sibling directly overlaps with order-status retrieval, so the absence of exclusions is acceptable.

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