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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the privacy envelope (never rider phone or exact location), the reduced response for non-delivery orders, and the field set returned. It could say more about what happens when the order is unknown or cancelled, hence not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, no filler: the return payload leads, then usage triggers, then the non-delivery carve-out and privacy limits. The only mild inefficiency is the colloquial opener 'How a delivery is going', which reads less like a tool contract than the rest.

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 carries the return-value burden and does it well by listing returned fields and the privacy boundary. Annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the required-input combination (orderId vs orderCode+restaurantId), which is soft in both the schema and the description.

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%, so each parameter (orderId, orderCode, restaurantId) is already documented, including when restaurantId is needed alongside orderCode. The description adds nothing about parameters, and notably does not clarify that despite zero required fields the caller must supply either orderId or the orderCode path. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 concrete operation (retrieving live delivery progress for the connected person's own order) and enumerates exactly what comes back: stage, minutes remaining, rider distance in km, and rider first name. It also carves out the non-delivery case (status only), which sharpens the scope. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 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?

It gives explicit trigger phrases ('where is my food', 'how far is it') and states the fallback behavior for non-delivery orders, which is actionable context. What is missing is any named alternative or exclusion — e.g. that the order must already exist and that list_my_orders is the way to obtain the identifier — so the when-not guidance is only implied.

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