check_order_statusLook up a By Adunni order by order ID to retrieve its status, shipping country, tracking number, and full product details for each line item.
Look up a By Adunni order by order ID. Returns status (processing/shipped/delivered/cancelled), shipping country, tracking number if available, and the full product details for each line item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orderId | Yes | Exact order ID, e.g. 'order_1001'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does meaningful work by enumerating the return payload: status enum values, shipping country, optional tracking number, and line-item product details. It does not state permission requirements, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g. what happens for an unknown order ID), which keeps it short of a 5.
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 sentences, zero filler, and the lookup action plus required key is front-loaded before the return-value detail. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing the returned fields, including the enumerated statuses and the conditional tracking number. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the call 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single orderId parameter is already documented with a concrete example ('order_1001'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'by order ID' without adding format or validation nuance, matching the baseline 3.
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 a specific verb and resource ('Look up a By Adunni order by order ID') and scopes it to the order domain, which cleanly separates it from the sibling get_product_info. An agent can pick the right tool without opening either schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and description — you call it when you have an order ID and need order status — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling get_product_info as the alternative for product-level lookups. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.