track_purchase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly discloses that the tool can both read and write (update) status, but it does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or validation behavior. This is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes only essential information, but the parameter listing could be more integrated. Every sentence is useful.

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?

Given no output schema and low schema coverage, the description fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., current status or confirmation). It also does not explain error conditions or behavior when updating. Important context is missing.

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?

Despite zero schema description coverage, the description adds meaning: 'purchase_id: ID des Kaufvorgangs' and 'new_status: Optional — neuer Status setzen', along with a list of valid statuses. This compensates well for the schema gaps.

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 action: retrieve or update purchase status. It lists possible status values, and the verb-resource combination ('Status ... abrufen oder aktualisieren') is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'list_purchases' or 'create_purchase_intent'.

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 implies usage for tracking purchase status but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. The list of statuses helps, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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