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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a prerequisite (status_token from purchase_document) and specifies the status aspects checked (payment and delivery). It does not disclose error behavior, token validity conditions, or return specifics, but the added context is useful beyond annotations.

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 a single sentence, concise and to the point. The key information (purpose and prerequisite) is front-loaded, with no unnecessary words or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and read-only annotations. The description covers purpose and prerequisite but does not explain the output or any error cases. Since no output schema exists, a description of return value would improve completeness, but the current description is adequate for a straightforward read-only status check.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning and source of status_token (requires status_token returned by purchase_document), but order_id is only implicit as the order being checked. Partial compensation, not full coverage.

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 the tool's function: checking the status of an order, specifically payment and delivery. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like purchase_document and generate_document by focusing on status checking. The slight mismatch between the tool name (document_status) and description (order) is resolved by the clear wording.

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 provides explicit usage guidance by stating it requires the status_token returned by purchase_document. This implies a usage sequence and prerequisite, but it does not mention explicit exclusions or alternative conditions. Still, it gives clear context for when to use the tool.

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