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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ID naming convention (ord_...), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens for an unknown/cancelled order id.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the returned resource, with the lookup key format appended. No filler and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool whose annotations and title already cover the safety and intent, the description is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the return shape (status values) and error behavior, which is partially excused by the absence of an output schema but still leaves the agent guessing what statuses to expect.

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% – the schema gives only 'order_id: string' with no description – so the description must compensate. It partially does by revealing the expected 'ord_...' prefix, but it does not explain whether the id is the order or payment identifier, nor any format constraints beyond the prefix.

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 (Get) and resource (status of a postcard or letter order) and constrains the identifier domain (ord_...). It implicitly separates itself from cancel_order and pay_order as the read-only status check, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Get the status... by id' – an agent can infer this is the lookup tool for an existing order. There is no statement of when not to use it, no prerequisites, and no explicit routing away from get_pricing or cancel_order.

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