Check a Hark Tech 3D print order's progress

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the failure mode returns found=false with a message, the response deliberately does not reveal which credential half was wrong (an anti-enumeration measure), no PII or pricing is returned, and the endpoint is rate limited per caller. This is context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the privacy/failure behavior follows logically, with every sentence carrying real information. The trailing Args block partly restates parameter names already visible in the schema, which is mild redundancy in an otherwise tight description.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload, and it enumerates exactly what comes back (status, next step, key dates, material and quantity, tracking number and link). Combined with the failure and privacy semantics, an agent has everything needed to call this and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load, and it does: it gives the order reference format (HT-P-YYYY-NNNN) with an example and ties the email to the address used at purchase. Neither parameter has a schema description, so a fuller note on case/whitespace handling or exact email matching would be needed for a 5.

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?

States a specific resource (one Hark Tech 3D print order) and a specific outcome (progress), scoped to the customer who placed it. That scope cleanly separates it from the sibling get_repair_status, which covers repair jobs rather than orders, without needing to name it.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (both order reference and matching email are required) and an explicit instruction not to guess, which tells the agent to prompt the person for inputs. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when not to use this one, so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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