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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral point is that the email is required alongside order_id, which largely restates the schema's required array; it says nothing about failed lookups, error behavior, or rate limits.

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?

Two short sentences, the action front-loaded and the precondition immediately after, with no filler or redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and prerequisites, and it does name the returned information (payment and delivery status). Minor gap: nothing about failure modes when the order_id/email pair doesn't match.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description merely repeats that both fields are required and adds no format, casing, or ID-prefix detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Check') and resource ('payment and delivery status of an order'), clearly distinct from siblings like create_order, compare_prices, or list_plans. It stops short of 5 because it never explicitly contrasts itself with the one sibling an agent might confuse it with (create_order), though the schema field description does that implicitly.

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 states the precondition ('Requires both order_id and the email used for the order'), which is real usage guidance, but it never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives or what happens if the pair doesn't match. Usage is implied (post-purchase lookup) rather than stated.

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