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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by listing the returned fields, explaining the progress status flow, noting that progress only appears for provided products, and stating that recentLogs are in latest-first order. It also provides conditional guidance for null progress, which helps an agent anticipate responses.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return-field details and a concrete usage example. Each sentence earns its place, though the second sentence is somewhat dense and could be split for readability.

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 compensates by enumerating the key returned fields (status, statusLabel, phaseLabel, progress, recentLogs) and their semantics. It is sufficient for a simple read-only single-order lookup, though it does not describe edge cases like missing/unknown orderId or authentication requirements.

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%: the single orderId parameter is already described as '주문 ID (list_my_orders의 orderId)'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: retrieving the progress of a single order (주문 1건의 진행 상황을 조회합니다). It differentiates itself from list_my_orders through the '1건' singular scope and the focus on progress fields, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use trigger: questions like '내 주문 어떻게 돼가?' and explains how to handle a null progress field (use statusLabel and recentLogs). However, it does not state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as list_my_orders or get_checkout_status.

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