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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only lookup, so the description's main added value is the disclosure that today's answer merely points to the order e-mail and the libraryofalexandria.com account, with assistant-side tracking not yet available. That limitation is genuinely useful, but it is phrased so vaguely ("opens here soon") that the agent cannot tell what the tool actually returns versus what is deferred.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the second is a run-on that mixes a partial output description with an unclear roadmap note ("tracking through an assistant opens here soon") that does not help an agent decide or invoke correctly.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what comes back, and it only half does so in an ambiguous way. It omits failure behavior (e.g., what happens when the e-mail does not match the order) and does not state the prerequisite relationship between the two required parameters.

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 100%, with order_ref, email, and the language enum all documented in detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about parameter formats or the requirement that the e-mail match the order, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Check where a printed order stands" gives a specific verb and resource and clearly separates this from siblings like create_custom_print_order or get_my_plan. The second sentence, however, blurs what the tool actually returns, leaving the agent unsure whether it delivers tracking data or just a pointer to the account page.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the prerequisite that both the order reference and the matching e-mail address are needed. The agent must infer the call context from the first sentence alone, with no routing to alternatives.

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