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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only that the order key appears in the confirmation email or URL, which is a useful sourcing hint but not a rich behavioral disclosure such as authentication/verification details, rate limits, or return 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?

Two short sentences front-load the purpose and then list prerequisites. Every clause earns its place, with no repetition or structural waste.

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 read-only status lookup, annotations cover safety and the schema covers the 'site' enum well. The description supplies required parameters and order-key origin, though without an output schema it could say more about the returned status payload.

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 low at 25%, so the description must compensate. It names the three required parameters and explains where to find the order key, but it omits the optional 'site' parameter and adds little semantic detail for order_id beyond 'numéro de commande'.

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 'Statut d'une commande', clearly identifying the order-status retrieval resource. It does not name a sibling or explicitly differentiate itself, but the resource is unambiguous and distinct from all listed cart, book, and checkout siblings.

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 lists the required inputs (order number, order key, billing email) and implies use when checking an order's status. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so usage remains inferred rather than stated.

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