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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive/open-world, so the description's added value is the not-found contract ('returns nothing') and the fact that both identifier types are accepted — real behavioral context an agent can't get from annotations. It stops short of describing the response shape or any rate limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and ending with the not-found edge case. The trailing endpoint path is marginally redundant for an agent but small; nothing else is wasted.

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 2-optional-param read tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, inputs, and the not-found case. The only gap is not pointing at finerworks_list_order_status_definitions for interpreting the returned status values.

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 both parameters already carry descriptions including the 'Not needed when order_pos is given' note, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrasing reinforces the either/or lookup but adds no format or constraint detail (e.g. the 50-item cap).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('current production status of orders') with example values ('in production, shipped, ...') and names the two lookup keys. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like finerworks_get_order (full order) and finerworks_list_order_status_definitions (definitions, not per-order state).

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 implies usage ('looked up by your order PO numbers or FinerWorks order ids') and notes the not-found behavior, so an agent can infer when it applies. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with finerworks_get_order or finerworks_list_pending_orders, leaving the choice to inference.

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