Get replenishment order status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context, explaining that it can be used to check upstream state after a write call returned WRITE_OUTCOME_UNKNOWN, which helps the agent decide whether to resubmit. This goes beyond the annotations by framing the tool's role in a workflow, though it does not describe return format or other edge cases.

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-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. Every clause earns its place with relevant information, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 lookup tool with rich annotations and complete schema coverage, the description is highly complete. It explains the tool's role in the order lifecycle, when to use it, and how it relates to the write operation. The absence of an output schema is not a gap because annotations and usage guidance provide sufficient context for the agent.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions: order_id is 'Order ID returned by korral_raise_replenishment_order' and store_id specifies 'Which store the order belongs to... Optional if this deployment is authorized for exactly one store; required otherwise.' The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Look up the status of a replenishment order previously raised with korral_raise_replenishment_order, by its order_id.' It uses a specific verb ('look up'), identifies the resource (replenishment order status), and mentions the key parameter (order_id). It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on order status lookup versus listing stores, checking stock risk, listing sales, or raising orders.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to follow up on an order from an earlier session, or to check upstream state after a write call returned WRITE_OUTCOME_UNKNOWN before deciding whether to resubmit.' This tells the agent when to use it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Since the sibling tools serve different purposes, the context is sufficient.

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