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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Set an order status by numeric code', without mentioning side effects, idempotency, authorization requirements, or what happens if the order is already in that status. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. It is efficient and avoids redundancy. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it less valuable than a slightly longer but more informative description.

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?

Given the simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the order_id parameter, return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. The tool is a mutation, but the description provides no context on what constitutes a valid update or what happens upon success/failure.

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 50% (order_id has no description). The description adds value by referencing 'get_order_statuses' for the status parameter, but it does not explain the order_id parameter at all. For the status parameter, the schema already provides example values, so the description's contribution is marginal. Overall, partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 action ('Set an order status') and specifies the mechanism ('by numeric code'). It references 'get_order_statuses' for valid codes, which helps distinguish this tool from others. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'cancel_order', which could be considered a specific status update.

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 implies usage by referencing 'get_order_statuses' to obtain valid codes, providing some guidance on when to use this tool. However, it offers no explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_order', nor does it mention prerequisites or context (e.g., order must exist).

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