get_order_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read-only status lookup, but does not explain the response format, potential error cases, or whether the data is live or cached. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but minimal.

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 with no redundant information. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the core purpose, usage scenarios, and provides a parameter format example. It does not discuss edge cases like not-found errors, but the output schema likely covers return values, so this is not a major gap.

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 only shows a single string parameter 'order_id' with no description. The description adds value by mentioning 'for an order id' and giving an example format 'SO-10042', which clarifies the expected input format. This compensates for the 0% schema description 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 starts with 'Return the current status of a global sales order', which is a specific verb+resource statement. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_stock_level, which is about inventory levels. The example 'SO-10042' further reinforces the order context.

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 this tool: 'when the user asks about an order, shipment progress, or fulfillment state for an order id'. This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. The sibling tool is about stock, so the usage boundary is implicit rather than stated.

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