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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds useful context beyond that: the list of possible statuses, the return of tracking info and delivery estimate, and the authentication requirement. There is no contradiction, and the description supplements the annotation without over-explaining.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence efficiently lists return data and a final note on authentication. There is no redundant filler; every sentence carries meaningful information.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (indicated by context), the description does not need to detail return structure. It covers all necessary aspects for a status-check tool: action, resource, statuses, additional outputs, and authentication. For a simple read-only operation, this is complete relative to its complexity and schema richness.

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 order_id and bearer_token have descriptions). The tool description itself does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it simply lists return fields. Since the schema fully documents parameters, baseline 3 is appropriate, and there is no extra value added by the description.

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 the tool's action ('Get the current status of a medication order') and the specific resource (medication order). It also enumerates the possible statuses and return data (tracking, delivery estimate), making it distinguishable from sibling tools like checkout_status or order_documents. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 implies usage when one needs order status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. It mentions 'Requires authentication' as a prerequisite, which is mildly helpful, but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools or clear guidance on when not to use it.

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