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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds context beyond that: it explains the different output richness depending on the provided parameters, and warns that order numbers are predictable (a security consideration). It doesn't contradict annotations. The description effectively conveys behavioral nuances such as the fact that the tool is safe but may return partial or no data depending on 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph, but it front-loads the core purpose and then details the two access modes concisely. While it could be split into clearer bullet points, every sentence adds value and there's no redundancy. It's efficient and readable.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so well: it lists payment statuses, production statuses, expected date, and additional fields available with the token. A notable gap is the behavior when no parameters are provided (none are required), which is not addressed. Overall, it's nearly complete for a read‑only status tool.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that orderNumber and email must be used together, and that statusToken (the last part of statusUrl) provides full access. This goes beyond the schema's plain descriptions and helps the agent construct correct calls.

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 clearly states it provides order status ('Stav objednávky') and enumerates the specific data it returns: payment status, production status, and expected date. It distinguishes between basic and full access based on the token, giving a clear sense of the tool's scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or contrast its purpose with them, so it's slightly below a perfect score.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: using statusToken grants full access (including statusUrl, invoice, and tracking), whereas orderNumber + email yields only basic status. It also notes that mismatches result in found:false. This implies when and how to call the tool, but it stops short of explicitly stating when to choose this over other order-related tools like get_payment_link or get_quote, so it's not a 5.

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