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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the conditional behavior: when the report is ready, it returns the content each of the three people sees; otherwise it returns the current progress step. This gives meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare 'get result'.

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 tightly packed sentence with the action, input source, and two outcome branches. Every clause earns its place and the primary verb is front-loaded.

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-style tool with no output schema, the description fully covers how to identify the record, what to expect in progress mode, and what to expect when the report is ready. Nothing essential to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the only parameter, order_id, is described as '下单时返回的 order_id'. The description repeats this same phrase, reinforcing its origin but adding no new format or usage detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource: '查' (check) the order progress/result via order_id, and clearly specifies the conditional return of three people's views. Combined with the sibling verify_place (which places orders), this getter is clearly distinguishable.

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 signals clear usage context: call this after placing an order, using the order_id obtained at that time. It implies this is the retrieval counterpart to verify_place, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it.

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