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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the ETA returned is the 'live ETA from the routes sent to drivers', distinguishing dispatched reality from planned data. It does not say what happens when an order is not scheduled (null/empty response) or whether the order lookup is scoped to a workspace, which would be the next useful disclosures.

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?

Three compact segments: the payload question front-loaded, the input instruction, then the endpoint reference. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the title or name.

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 must convey return semantics, and it does so via the enumerated fields (driver/vehicle, stop number, time, live ETA). For a two-parameter read tool with a readOnly annotation, this is close to complete; only the not-scheduled case is left unaddressed.

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%, and both parameters carry descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's only added value is the phrasing 'Give orderNo or id', which implies the two identifiers are alternative lookup keys, but it does not state precedence when both are supplied or which is preferred.

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 states a precise verb+resource+payload: whether an order is scheduled, on which driver/vehicle, at which stop number and time, plus the live ETA. That field-level enumeration clearly separates it from list-style siblings like optimoroute_get_orders or optimoroute_search_orders, and from the dispatch-wide optimoroute_get_dispatch_status. It also names the backing endpoint (GET /get_scheduling_info), removing ambiguity about what data source is queried.

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 interrogative framing implies the calling context (checking an individual order's scheduling state), and 'Give orderNo or id' tells the agent which inputs to supply. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to the sibling that answers the complementary question (e.g. optimoroute_get_planning_status or optimoroute_get_dispatch_status). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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