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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to re-argue safety. It does add real context beyond them: the shape of the returned state (including that a Rückfrage state carries its questions) and the guarantee that no state is mutated. It does not mention error behavior for an invalid/mismatched token.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause does work (states, sub-state, the no-mutation guarantee). Minor cost from the informal 'in plain German words' framing, which adds little for an agent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a two-parameter read tool the description is close to sufficient; only failure modes for a wrong or foreign order_token are unaddressed.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the provenance of order_id/order_token from start_order and the privacy constraint on the token. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('shows where the order stands') and resource, and enumerates the exact status values returned (prepared, ordered, being checked, Rückfrage, issued). An agent can tell this is the read-only status lookup apart from update_order or review_order, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 closing 'Changes nothing' implies a read-only lookup and the status enumeration implies 'use this to check progress', but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over review_order or check_eligibility. Usage must be inferred.

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