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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the status is 'live' and the order must be 'existing', but it does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether phone lookup has privacy constraints, what happens if both lookup keys are supplied or omitted, or what the response looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant clauses. It efficiently states the action, the tracked resources, and the lookup keys.

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 two-parameter, read-only tracking tool with rich schema descriptions, the description is minimally adequate: it covers what is tracked and by which identifiers. It still leaves an important ambiguity because both parameters are optional in the schema while the prose implies one of them is needed, and with no output schema the description could clarify the shape of the status result.

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 both parameters are already documented with examples. The description adds that either an order number or a customer phone can be used for lookup, which reinforces the intent, but it does not clarify precedence or whether one is required despite both being marked optional.

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 gives a specific verb-resource pair: track the live status of an existing order, litre balance, or delivery progress. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, which are mostly checkout/catalog/coverage tools rather than status-trackers.

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 word 'existing' implies this is for orders already placed, and it names the two acceptable lookup keys. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives for related tasks such as creating a checkout cart.

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