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 states that the tool returns order details, product info, and delivery status, which reveals a read-only behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., order not found), authentication needs, or side effects. This is adequate for a simple status check but not exhaustive.

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, clear sentence that packs in the purpose, method, and return information. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Check order status') and contains no wasteful filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly. A slightly higher score would require explicit guidance on when not to use it or error handling, but it is adequate for the complexity.

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 description for order_id ('Order ID (required)') covers 100% of the parameter semantics. The description's mention of 'by ID' aligns with the schema but adds no extra detail. Since schema coverage is high, 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Check'), resource ('order status'), and method ('by ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like place_order (which creates orders) and check_availability (which checks availability), so the purpose is 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to check the status of an order by providing its ID. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context of the sibling tool list (e.g., place_order, check_availability) makes the appropriate use case evident. A score of 4 reflects clear context without explicit exclusions.

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