Order status lifecycle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the taxonomy it returns (sendable / landed / terminal plus transitions), which is useful reference content, but it never states that this is a side-effect-free, static lookup with no inputs, nor does it describe the shape of the returned transitions. For a zero-annotation tool this is partial coverage.

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, front-loaded fragment with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the fragmentary phrasing slightly reduces immediate comprehension compared with a full sentence.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only source of information about the return value. It names the status categories but does not explain the transition structure, whether the list is exhaustive, or how an agent should interpret 'sendable'. Adequate as a pointer, incomplete as a specification.

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 defines zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter meaning is missing.

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 communicates the subject matter: the set of status values (sendable/landed/terminal) and the transitions between them. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a clear statement of what the tool returns, and it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling get_order_status (which likely returns one order's status). The intent is inferable but not crisply stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_order_status or retry_order. The agent must guess that this is a static reference/metadata lookup rather than a per-order query.

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