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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does a good job describing the return payload (status enum, confirmation code format CUN4-XXXXXXXX, booking_id, voucher flag), but never mentions the required `token` parameter, auth requirements, or error behavior for unknown orders.

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?

Front-loaded with the core status information and the enum values, then the supporting fields, then the usage sentence. Dense but every clause adds information; 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 and no annotations, the description covers return values well, but omits the required token parameter entirely, leaving an agent that only reads the description unable to satisfy a required input without inspecting the schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for `order_id`, explaining it accepts either an ord_... id or a confirmation number — valuable beyond the schema — but says nothing about the equally-required `token` 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (order status), and enumerates the returned status values plus confirmation code, booking_id, and voucher readiness. It doesn't explicitly say how it differs from siblings like list_my_bookings or get_voucher, so an agent still has to infer which one to pick.

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?

One sentence gives a usage cue: track whether payment has confirmed the reservation. No alternatives or exclusions are named — notably it doesn't tell the agent to use get_voucher for vouchers despite mentioning voucher readiness, and gives no guidance on list_my_bookings vs. this tool.

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