Get order status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that authentication is required and uses the verb 'retrieve' to indicate a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing orders, error responses, or side effects, and the return format is not described.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the important authentication constraint. There is no wasted wording or redundant detail.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but the lack of an output schema means the description should specify what the return value contains. While 'current status' implies the output, it does not explain whether it is a simple string, an object, or how errors are reported. This leaves some ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100%: the order_id parameter has a clear description stating it is returned by place_order. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 retrieves the current status of an existing order by its id, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_order_history, which likely serve a different purpose. The input requirement (order id) is also explicit.

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 when an order id is available and current status is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_order_history. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are provided, though the authentication requirement gives some usage context.

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