status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior context by warning that a 'pending' state is normal and must not be treated as failure or trigger a re-purchase. It still doesn't describe what statuses can be returned or how long pending may persist.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the recovery scenario and the timeout warning front-loaded in that order. 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 handles usage well but leaves the returned status values and their meaning largely unexplained — it names only 'pending'. Enough to invoke safely, not enough to fully interpret the result.

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 0% for the single required order_id parameter, and the description never says what identifies an order or its format. The phrase 'private order' hints at the resource but adds no meaning beyond the schema's parameter name.

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 states a specific action — recovering the state of a private order after a lost response — which lets the agent distinguish this status/retrieval call from purchase-oriented siblings like register, renew, and quote. It is clear enough to act on, though the resource is described indirectly through the scenario rather than as an explicit 'get order status' statement.

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?

It gives a clear triggering condition (a lost/timeout response) and an explicit anti-pattern ('never buy again to resolve a timeout'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not name a sibling alternative to use instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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