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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that verification via order number and email is required and explicitly states that no address data is returned, which is a helpful privacy-related transparency. It does not mention side effects or error behavior, but for a simple status lookup it provides useful behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 core purpose, and every clause adds value (status range, delivery date, verification requirements, explicit exclusion of address data). No redundant or filler content.

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 low-complexity tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (status and delivery date) and what it does not return (address data), and the verification requirements make the usage context self-contained.

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?

The schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (email and order_number), covering 100% of parameters. The description repeats essentially the same information ('Bestellnummer aus der Bestellbestätigung' and 'E-Mail-Adresse des Bestellers'), adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 queries the status of an existing order at Blumen Komander, enumerating the possible statuses (received, in preparation, on the way, delivered) and including the delivery date. It uses a specific verb ('Fragt ab') and resource ('Status einer bestehenden Bestellung'), and it is clearly distinct from sibling tools like check_availability or get_shop_info.

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 when to use this tool (when checking order status) and even states the required verification data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is so distinct from siblings that the context is clear enough.

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