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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/anonymous annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: the email must match the order or the tool returns found:false, and it explains the security rationale (order numbers are predictable, so without the email constraint anyone could read others' orders). This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context an agent needs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, zero filler. The first sentence establishes purpose and inputs; the second delivers the critical constraint and its rationale. Every clause earns its place, and the most important behavioral caveat is front-loaded.

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 2-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, the required inputs, and the failure behavior (found:false). It doesn't enumerate possible status values, but the found:false mention hints at the return shape sufficiently for an agent to 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 coverage is 100% — both params already have descriptions — so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that the email is mandatory, must match the order, and that a mismatch produces found:false rather than an error, which clarifies the semantic contract of the email parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Vrátí stav objednávky' (returns order status), specifying the exact content returned (payment status and processing status) and the identifying inputs (order number and customer email). It is clearly distinguishable from all siblings, none of which perform status lookups — create_order and create_design create, get_quote quotes, list_products lists.

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 usage context is clear: it is a read-only status lookup keyed on an order number that the input schema explicitly attributes to create_order, implying 'call after creating an order.' It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but there is no genuine ambiguity because no sibling tool offers status retrieval.

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