get_order_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds behavioral context by listing possible statuses and their meanings (e.g., 'pending' means check again, 'action_required' means user action needed). There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 that wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the set of possible outcomes.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the purpose and return values adequately. However, it does not explain the role of the 'intent' parameter (described in schema) or how the tool handles edge cases like invalid UUIDs. Still, the listed statuses include 'not_found', so it is mostly complete.

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% for both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('whether a submitted order went through') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'submit_order' or 'get_order_history'. It enumerates possible statuses, making the purpose precise.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating 'check whether a submitted order went through' and listing statuses like 'pending (check again)', which suggests when to call this tool (e.g., after submission). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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