check_order_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status, history with timestamps, and placement time, implying a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state lack of side effects or authorization needs, but the detail on return values compensates for a simple query tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loads purpose, and efficiently covers input, output, and usage. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the input (order_id) and output (drink, size, status, history, timestamp) and provides a usage scenario. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter `order_id` has no description in the schema. The description only mentions 'by its order ID' without providing format, length, or examples. Given the low coverage, the description should add more semantic context, but it does not.

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 specifies the action (check status) and resource (placed order by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like `update_order_status` and `mark_order_ready` by stating it is for querying, not modifying. The explicit use case 'tell the customer whether their order is still being made or is ready' further solidifies its unique purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('to tell the customer whether their order is still being made or is ready'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that the agent can infer usage from sibling tool names.

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