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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context about what is returned: current status, a dated timeline, and a status page link. It could mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, but those are less critical for a read-only status lookup.

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 front-loaded with the usage condition, then explains the accepted input, return value, and safety boundary. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the read-only note is compact enough not to feel redundant.

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 one-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description supplies the trigger conditions, input sources, expected return shape, and an explicit non-use case. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single reference parameter. The description adds meaningful detail beyond the schema by naming the concrete order-reference format, the source of each reference type, and the fact that a full review or status link is also accepted.

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, explaining that the tool answers whether a burofax was paid, sent, delivered, or has a certificate. It also clearly distinguishes itself from create_burofax_draft by saying it must not be used to create or change a letter.

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?

It explicitly names the triggering user questions and accepted reference sources, including the order reference from the receipt email or the draft reference returned by create_burofax_draft. It also gives a clear exclusion: do not use this to create or change a letter.

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