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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context (no account or password required, values come from a status link), but says nothing about invalid/expired codes, rate limits, or what a failed lookup returns.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and required inputs front-loaded before the auth note and usage hint. Every sentence contributes something an agent could act on.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what 'current state' includes; it never indicates which status fields or milestones are returned. For a simple two-parameter lookup it is workable, but the agent cannot anticipate the response shape or error signaling.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does clarify the crucial provenance of both values: the id and code come from the status link and the code is not a password. It does not describe format, length, or validation for either parameter, leaving half the semantic gap open.

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 gives a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('the current state of an order') plus the exact inputs needed to do it. It is clearly distinct from the write-oriented sibling place_order and from get_pricing/preview_set, so an agent can route on the text alone.

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?

'Use this to report progress back to the person who asked' gives a concrete usage context, and 'Needs no account and no password' rules out an authentication prerequisite the agent might otherwise assume. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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