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

Goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: it discloses the failure shape (found=false with a message), the deliberate ambiguity of the failure message, the PII exclusion list (no names, addresses, prices, payment details), and per-caller rate limiting. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loads the scope and the security-critical 'both must match' rule, and the trailing Args block is short. The return-field enumeration ('what happens next, the dates placed, paid, ready and shipped, material and quantity') is somewhat listy, but every element carries information.

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 compensates by describing the returned fields, the failure case, and the privacy boundary. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and to interpret both success and failure responses.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does: it defines order_ref by example pattern and explains that email means the address the order was placed with, plus the matching requirement. It stops short of stating normalization rules (case, whitespace), so not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve progress) and a precisely scoped resource ('one Hark Tech 3D print order, for the customer who placed it'), and the order-ref format (HT-P-YYYY-NNNN) makes it unmistakable against siblings like get_repair_status or get_quote.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: both the reference and the email must match, the agent must ask the person for both, and must not guess. It does not name a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of a 5.

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