check_order_status

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint and idempotentHint. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it is 'read-mostly' rather than a pure read (it writes local state, including design-approval holds), that it hits an external provider, and that it is safe to call repeatedly. It stops short of stating required permissions or failure 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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the usage hint following. No filler text. The trailing '[#81b1a2]' artifact is noise but does not affect comprehension.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some return burden; it tells the agent it yields shipping/hold status, which is adequate. Combined with annotations covering external-call and idempotency behavior, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly, though exact status vocabulary is unspecified.

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 (order_uuid, workspace) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond implied order scope, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verbs and resource: poll the fulfillment provider for order status and update it locally. It is distinguishable from a plain read like get_order_details because it names the external polling and local-update behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling sync_orders, so it falls just short of the top score.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use to see whether an order has shipped or is on hold at the provider.' That tells the agent when to reach for it. No explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives (e.g., get_order_details, list_order_holds, sync_orders), so it is not a 5.

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