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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent and closed-world, so 'Read-only: it changes nothing' adds nothing. The real added value is the prerequisite disclosure that the order_ref comes from order creation, which tells the agent where to source the required input.

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 tight sentences: usage trigger first, prerequisite and safety second. The trailing 'Read-only: it changes nothing' is slightly redundant with the annotations but does little harm.

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 read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the trigger, the input provenance and the safety profile. Nothing the agent needs before calling is missing.

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 only 50%: locale is documented in the schema, but order_ref is bare there. The description compensates by explaining that order_ref is the reference returned at order creation, which is meaningful provenance beyond the schema.

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 ('get order status') and enumerates the states it reports (paid, confirmed, on the way, delivered), so the agent knows exactly what the call answers. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling pinflower_check_delivery, which appears to overlap in scope.

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?

'Use this when the buyer asks what is happening with an order placed here' gives a clear trigger condition and a scope qualifier (orders placed here). No explicit when-not or sibling exclusion against check_delivery is provided, so it stops short of a 5.

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