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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses authentication requirements and the status lifecycle, which is helpful. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error handling, but for a simple read tool this is acceptable.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes essential details. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main return values and authentication context. Given no output schema or annotations, it does not describe the exact return format or error scenarios, but it provides enough for typical usage.

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 schema already describes order_token sufficiently, and the description does not add new meaning for order_id. Since schema coverage is 50%, the description partially compensates by explaining the alternative authentication method, but it does not clarify the order_id parameter further.

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 'Check' with the resource 'an order' and enumerates the returned data: status, tracking number, and payment_url. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_order or create_order, which have different actions.

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 context for when to use this tool (e.g., to re-answer 'how do I pay') and prerequisite guidance (requires order_token or the API key). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes.

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