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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the return payload shape, plan gating, per-tracking-id rate limits, and the underlying GET endpoint. This gives the agent meaningful operational context about safe invocation and constraints.

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 tightly front-loaded: core purpose first, then return details, prerequisites, rate limit, and endpoint. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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 burden of explaining return values and does so clearly. It also covers the required tracking id, plan restriction, rate limit, and endpoint, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds that the tracking id is the last part of the order's trackingLink. It does not elaborate on include_static_data, though the schema already documents that parameter.

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 verb and resource—real-time delivery progress of an order by tracking id—and enumerates what is returned: status, timestamps, driver location, and ETA. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling shipday_get_order, but the tracking-id framing makes the intended use clear.

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 is implied by the real-time progress framing and the tracking-id requirement, and the description adds important prerequisites: Business Advanced plan only and a 3-requests-per-minute-per-tracking-id limit. It does not state when to prefer this over shipday_get_order or other order-related siblings.

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