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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already declared, the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description adds useful context that both identifiers must be supplied together as on the confirmation email, implying an identity-verification gate, but says nothing about what happens when the pair does not match or what the returned status comprises.

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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the prerequisite. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 simple two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, this is nearly sufficient, since the annotations cover safety and the description covers the access requirement. The only gap is an unspecified notion of what "status" returns, which the agent must discover at call time.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning, and it does: it identifies both parameters, states they are jointly required, and points to where the values come from (the confirmation email). It omits order-number format details, but the schema's length constraints partly cover that.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Look up the status of an existing order"), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the pricing, quoting, and template-search siblings. It stops short of naming or contrasting any alternative, but none of the siblings overlap in function.

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?

"existing order" implicitly tells the agent this applies only to orders already placed, and the requirement statement clarifies the precondition for a successful lookup. There is no explicit guidance on failure cases (e.g., order not found, mismatched email) or on when another tool would be a better fit.

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