get_skattekort_ordre_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, rate limits, or possible outcomes (e.g., not-found statuses). This minimal disclosure is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently states the tool's purpose, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and the schema covers the parameter. However, without an output schema, the description does not explain what statuses will be returned or how they are represented, leaving a gap in completeness for an agent needing to handle the response.

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 100%, with the parameter 'ordreId' described as 'Order ID from order_skattekort', which is clear and references a related tool. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Check the status of a skattekort order' clearly states a specific action (check) on a specific resource (skattekort order status), distinguishing it from siblings like get_skattekort or order_skattekort. The name reinforces the purpose, making the tool's intent unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives, such as after ordering a skattekort or instead of get_skattekort_resultat. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent without contextual usage information.

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