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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the privacy boundary ('rider's phone number and exact location are never returned') and that the response shape varies by order type. It stops short of covering error or not-found behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a parallel per-order-type structure that makes it easy to scan. The privacy clause is well placed at the end. It is dense but every clause carries information, with 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, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the returned fields for delivery, pre-order, and other orders, which is exactly what an agent needs here. The remaining gap is identifier selection across the three optional parameters, which matters given that none are required.

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 each of the three parameters is already documented, and the description adds nothing about them. It leaves the real ambiguity unaddressed: with zero required parameters, when should an agent pass orderId versus orderCode plus restaurantId. Baseline 3 for high schema 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 states a specific resource and scope: retrieving live tracking state for an order the connected person placed, broken out by order type. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts with the closest sibling (list_my_orders or check_booking_status), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'the connected person's own order' hints this is for orders already placed, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_my_orders or check_booking_status, and no guidance on what to do if the caller lacks an order ID. Minimum viable context without exclusions or alternatives.

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