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

Annotations already fully declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description need not repeat that. It does add real context about the returned content — the exact status enum values, plain-language next_step, and a payment link only while unpaid — which helps an agent read the result, though this is largely return-value narrative.

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 no padding, and it opens with the most important concept (current order status). It loses a point for being a verbless fragment whose content is return-value detail an agent may not need before deciding to call the tool.

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?

With an output schema present, the description did not need to enumerate return fields, and it spends its entire budget doing exactly that. The genuinely missing piece — how this differs from track_order and when to prefer each — is absent, leaving the definition adequate but incomplete for a multi-sibling order domain.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('order_id returned by purchase.'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter; per the high-coverage baseline this is a 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 is a noun phrase enumerating what the response contains (status states, next_step, payment link, shipments, timeline) rather than stating a verb+resource purpose. An agent can infer retrieval of a single order's state, but nothing distinguishes it from the sibling track_order, which likely reports overlapping shipment information.

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 when-to-use guidance at all — no statement of when to call get_order versus track_order, cancel_order, or purchase. The clause 'the payment link while unpaid' hints at a use case but is a return-value note, not routing guidance.

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