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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the read-only nature. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (step, delivery date, link) and the constraint that downloads are not performed here. This goes beyond the annotation's simple read-only flag, giving the agent a clear behavioral model. No contradiction found.

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 with zero fluff. The first sentence states purpose and inputs, the second lists outputs and a critical limitation. The most important information (order status retrieval) is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema). The description adequately covers what it returns (step, delivery date, tracking link) and the download limitation. Without an output schema, the description does not specify the exact response structure, but listing the fields gives the agent a reasonable expectation. It could mention error handling or required order existence, but these are minor gaps for a read-only lookup 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%: both parameters have descriptive text ('Email utilisé pour la commande' and format example). The description repeats the format (LG-XXXX-XXXXX) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't elaborate on validation, edge cases, or parameter interdependencies, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('get status') and resource (Lingoris order), and lists the exact outputs (current step, estimated delivery, tracking link). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings (price estimate, languages) by focusing on order tracking. The additional note that downloads happen only on lingoris.fr clarifies what the tool does not do, removing ambiguity.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to check order status) and explicitly states when not to use it (for downloading translations, which requires lingoris.fr). However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit 'when-not' scenarios beyond the download case. Since siblings are unrelated, this is adequate context without exclusions.

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