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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds meaningful context beyond that by disclosing the identity/verification requirement (reference plus the e-mail or phone the order was placed with). It stops short of describing failure behavior or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the resource and returned data, then the prerequisites. Minor bloat in the trailing list ('the proof') but no wasted sentences.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and states both required inputs, making it adequate for this simple read-only lookup. It could still note error/not-found behavior, but nothing essential 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 100% and both parameters are documented, so the schema carries the load. The description adds only marginal value — where to find the reference (confirmation e-mail) — which is a small hint beyond the 'DP-261002-ABCD' example already in 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+resource ('status of an existing order or quote request') and enumerates what is returned: progress, expected delivery/pickup, tracking, proof. This clearly separates it from siblings like send_status_link and request_quote.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it tells the agent the operation targets an existing order/quote and names the required inputs, but never says when to prefer this over send_status_link or what to do when the reference is not found.

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