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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the result deliberately omits personal data and field values, making it privacy-safe for user-facing updates. This helps the agent understand what kind of data the tool will and will not return.

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 carry the full purpose, scope, and usage guidance with no redundant wording. The core constraint ('no personal data, no field values') is front-loaded, making the description easy to parse quickly.

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 tool, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and output scope. Since there is no output schema, it would be slightly stronger if it enumerated possible status values, but that is not essential for selecting or invoking the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents order_id and access_token, including the one-time issuance warning for access_token. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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, scoped purpose: a shortened order status with no personal data and no field values. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling get_certificate_order, which presumably returns full order details. The intended resource and output scope are unambiguous.

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 says to use the tool to inform the user about order progress, which gives clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name the full-detail alternative, though the distinction is implied by 'shortened status.'

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