track_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are real-time and scoped to active orders, which is genuine context, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior when an order is untrackable. An output schema exists, which relieves some of the return-value burden.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and free of filler. The 'Args:' block partially restates what the schema already declares, which is mildly redundant, but overall the description is compact.

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?

An output schema covers return values, so the description needn't explain them. For a simple one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, but with zero annotations it leaves open the read-only assumption, the meaning of 'active,' and failure modes.

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%, so the description should compensate. It documents the single parameter as 'The order ID to track,' confirming intent, but adds no format or constraint detail (string type, ID shape) beyond the schema's own 'Order Id' title. Minimal but non-zero value added.

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: 'Get real-time tracking info for an active order.' The 'real-time tracking' framing distinguishes it from sibling get_order (order details) and get_order_history (past orders), though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly. Clear enough for an agent to select it among the order-related tools.

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?

'For an active order' implies a usage condition (live/in-flight orders vs. historical), which is useful scoping. However, it never names get_order or get_order_history as the alternatives, nor does it say what happens if the order is not active. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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