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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that access is gated on a per-order working credential and that refund/feedback paths are out of scope and require human contact — context not present in the annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence with the primary purpose front-loaded and the out-of-scope routing in a trailing clause. Nothing is redundant; it could only be improved by splitting the usage exclusion into its own short sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the status domains queried plus the credential requirement. Minor gaps remain around how a caller obtains the credential and behavior on invalid input, but the definition is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies that credential is the order's working credential, which adds meaning beyond the bare minLength/maxLength constraint, but it says nothing about service_id or its required 'LX-' + 32 hex format, leaving one of two params entirely undocumented.

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 names a specific verb ('查询' / query) and enumerates the exact resource facets returned: payment, fulfillment, interaction and delivery status. It is clearly a read-status tool, distinguishably different from siblings like pay_with_balance or cancel_order, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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?

It states the precondition for use ('凭本单工作凭据' — with this order's working credential) and gives an explicit exclusion: feedback and refunds must go to a human via the email in the rules. That routing guidance is genuinely useful, but it does not cover adjacent cases such as what to do if the credential is invalid or when to prefer get_run_result.

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