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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation: verification is required via order number and email, the tool returns status including delivery date, and it deliberately omits address data. This helps the agent set expectations correctly.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the verification requirements and a clear non-return statement. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the tool name or title.

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 simple read-only status tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: what it returns, what inputs are needed for verification, and what it deliberately excludes. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning what happens with invalid order numbers, but overall it is sufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces the verification purpose and specifies that the order number comes from the order confirmation, but it does not add substantial new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it queries the status of an existing order, listing the possible statuses and that it includes the delivery date. It also explicitly notes that no address data is returned, which differentiates it from sibling tools like check_order_details.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to check an order's status, and it states the required verification inputs (order number from the confirmation and buyer's email). It does not explicitly name alternative siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the exclusion of address data provides useful routing context.

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