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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it names the action categories checked and describes the returned isAvailable Yes/No field, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

The description is two tight sentences plus the endpoint. It front-loads the core capability and immediately clarifies that the tool is non-mutating, with no wasted text.

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 simple one-parameter availability lookup, the description gives enough: what is checked, that it is read-only, the returned availability signal, and the underlying endpoint. An agent has what it needs to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter, order_id, and the input schema has 100% description coverage with an example. The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific resource-scoped operation: checking which order changes Prodigi still allows. It enumerates the action types (cancel, recipient details, shipping method, metadata) and makes clear this is an availability check, not a mutation, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_order and list_orders.

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 context is clear: call this to learn what changes are currently permitted on an order. The explicit note that it only reports availability and changes nothing helps an agent choose it over a mutation path, though no sibling tool is named as an alternative.

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