Статус заказа

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotent annotations, the description adds crucial behavioral context: app_id is mandatory despite an empty schema default, and without it the bank returns a raw 400 instead of a meaningful error. It also explains how to derive the app_id from grocery_stores(), which is important operational knowledge.

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 compact and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then gives the expected usage context, then delivers the mandatory app_id caveat. Every sentence adds unique, useful information with no 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?

For a read-only order-status tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the condition requiring invocation, the required parameters and their semantic quirks, and the source for deriving the app_id. Nothing essential is missing for correct use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully covers both parameters: order_id is the order identifier to query, and app_id is clarified as mandatory, not optional despite the default, and must be taken from grocery_stores() based on the store name from orders().

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 identifies the exact action: reconcile the status of a grocery order by orderId via GET /api/grocery/order. It also states why it is useful: checking whether an order was created or paid after an UNKNOWN checkout. This clearly differentiates it from grocery_checkout, grocery_attempts, and grocery_order_cancel.

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 gives explicit guidance: use this after an UNKNOWN checkout to verify whether the order was created or paid on the backend. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or explain when not to use them, but the trigger condition is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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