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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the required inputs and implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it describe the response format or potential errors. The description adds some context beyond the schema by emphasizing the need for both order number and email, but lacks depth on 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately states the required inputs. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple read-only status check with two fully documented parameters, the description is mostly complete. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it doesn't describe what the response will look like or any error conditions. An agent could call it correctly, but might be uncertain about the return format.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the requirement that both are needed together, which is a slight enhancement, but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: checking an order's status. It identifies the specific resource (order) and the action (check status). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the sibling list contains no other order-status tool, so the purpose is 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?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: when you need to check an order's status. It also specifies the required credentials (order number and email), which is essential usage guidance. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but no sibling tool serves this purpose, so the guidance is sufficient.

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