Check a Hark Tech repair's progress

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

Annotations only declare a safe read; the description adds what actually matters: a two-factor match requirement, that a mismatch returns found=false with a message and deliberately never reveals which field was wrong (privacy/anti-enumeration), that no names, addresses, prices or payment details come back, and that calls are rate limited per caller.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the identity rule, then the return payload and edge cases – ordering is good and most sentences earn their place. The trailing 'Args' block largely duplicates the schema field titles and adds little the schema does not already carry.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (status in plain words, next steps, booked/paid/received/completed/shipped dates, timeline and updates, carrier tracking number and link). Failure mode, privacy limits and rate limiting are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling it.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden and does so: it gives concrete reference shapes (BK-1A2B3C4D from the booking email, 20260923-114935-a3582466 from the enquiry confirmation) and explains that email must be the address used at booking. That is meaning well beyond the bare string types 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 first sentence gives a precise verb and resource ('progress of one Hark Tech repair booking or repair enquiry') scoped to the owning customer, and the name reinforces it. It never explicitly names the adjacent tools (get_order_status, get_repair_service_info), so an agent must infer the repair-vs-order boundary rather than being told.

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?

It sets a firm precondition ('both the reference and the email it was booked with must match; ask for both and do not guess') and explains where each reference format comes from, which is actionable usage guidance. It stops short of stating when to prefer a sibling tool, e.g. that this is not for order lookups.

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