check_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 disclosing behavior. It only mentions the authentication requirement. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what happens if the order is not found, whether it returns historical orders when order_id is omitted, or any rate limits. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 two short sentences: 'Check the status of a Chick-fil-A mobile order. Requires authentication.' Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with a necessary prerequisite. Excellent conciseness.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves some gaps. It does not describe the return value or behavior when order_id is omitted, though the schema covers that. It also doesn't mention error scenarios. Given the tool's simplicity, a score of 3 reflects that it is minimally sufficient but not richly informative.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter (order_id), including its optionality and the behavior of omitting it. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema itself is quite clear, so the lack of description-level param detail is acceptable.

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 the tool's function: 'Check the status of a Chick-fil-A mobile order.' This distinguishes it from siblings like 'place_order' and 'view_rewards' by focusing specifically on status checking. It could be a 5 if it explicitly named alternatives, but the verb+resource combination is specific and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'place_order' or 'view_rewards'. The only contextual hint is 'Requires authentication,' which is a prerequisite rather than a usage directive. There is no mention of scenarios like 'after placing an order' or 'when you need a quick status update.'

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