Get order status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only nature via the GET verb and lists the returned fields (status, result, erp_ref, errors), which is real value with no output schema present. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, whether status is terminal, or how errors are surfaced, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single compact line, front-loaded with the endpoint and followed by the payload contents; nothing is padded. The em-dash fragment style is terse but readable.

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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration is a useful stand-in, but a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented identifier parameter should say more about lifecycle semantics, error handling, and retry/polling expectations. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only echoes request_id inside the path template, implying it is a path identifier, but adds no meaning about where the request_id originates (e.g., from upload_order) or what form it takes beyond the uuid format already in the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('GET /order_status/{request_id}') and enumerates what comes back (status, result, erp_ref, errors), so the agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_orders or get_order_group, which 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as list_orders or retry_order, and no prerequisite or polling guidance. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and path.

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