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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: access is scoped to the authenticated buyer via X-MCP-API-Key or a buyer X-Agent-Token, implying authorization/ownership checks that an agent must satisfy.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the returned fields, with the auth caveat in a trailing parenthetical. It is efficient, though the dense credential phrasing slightly taxes readability.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, returned fields, and the authorization model. It does not describe error cases (e.g., order not owned by the caller), which would be the only meaningful remaining gap.

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% for the single order_id parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description only implies that order_id must belong to the authenticated buyer; it adds no format, range, or lookup detail, which matches the baseline 3.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (get order status) and even enumerates the returned facets (status, tracking, inspection deadline), which clarifies scope beyond the bare title. It does not explicitly differentiate from the nearest sibling get_quote_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_quote_status or the bulk order tools. The only conditional content is about authentication, not about choosing this tool.

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