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

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by warning 'Read-only despite using POST,' which disarms the natural assumption that POST mutates data, and by capping the request at 500 orders. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but the key behavioral surprise is disclosed.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the core action and packs statuses, payload, and the POST caveat without filler. It is long, but nearly every clause carries distinct information, so little 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so by listing service times, positions, POD form data, tracking URL, and optional feedback. Combined with the 500-order cap, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call.

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%, so the description need not document the two parameters, and it correctly does not. It loosely mirrors the optional feedback flag ('optionally customer feedback') but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('completion status of orders') and enumerates the exact status values returned along with the payload contents (times, positions, POD data, tracking URL). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_orders or get_events that return other data.

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 purpose implies when to call it (after orders have been serviced), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative for related queries. The sibling update_completion_details is the obvious counterpart and is never referenced, so routing between reading and writing completion details is left to inference.

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