Track an order or job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: the staged progression (payment, admission, job), the artifacts returned, and that the call is free. It stops short of stating whether it blocks or polls, what a pending/incomplete order yields, or any permission requirements.

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 waste: the lifecycle and return value come first, the accepted input forms and cost follow. 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation, the accepted inputs, the returned artifacts and the cost. The remaining gap is operational behavior for an incomplete order or a failure, which an agent might want before invoking.

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 0% — the single 'id' property is an undocumented string with minLength 6 — so the description is doing the work by naming the three acceptable id forms (orderId, jobId, or imd_orders prefix). It does not explain the 6-character minimum or the prefix format, but it adds substantial meaning over the bare schema.

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 (follows an order then its job) and even the outcome it returns, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like imd_status or imd_check, which is what keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 only implied: calling out that the tool is 'Free' nudges the agent toward it over costlier alternatives, and naming 'a prefix from imd_orders' hints at the input source. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to imd_status, imd_check or imd_orders.

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