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 the order is simulated, that the timeline is accelerated (~2 min), and that repeated calls are needed. It also mentions the possible outcome of being 'eaten by a whale,' adding non-obvious behavioral information.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential usage and behavioral context. Every word earns its place.

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?

While the description covers the workflow and polling behavior, it does not describe the return value or output shape, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. For an agent invoking the tool, knowing what to expect in the response is important, so this is a notable omission.

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 description only says 'by id,' which maps to the order_id parameter but adds no extra meaning regarding format, source, or how to obtain the ID. Given 0% schema description coverage, it fails to compensate for the lack of parameter detail.

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 uses a specific verb 'track' with a resource 'a fake order by id'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like buy, get_product, and search_products by focusing on post-purchase tracking.

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 provides clear context that the order journey runs on a fast clock and advises calling multiple times to watch it progress. Although it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, the usage pattern is clear from the context.

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