ubereats_track_order

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 reveals that the orderId parameter defaults to the most recent active order, which is useful. However, it does not specify behavior for non-active orders, required permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving significant gaps.

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 extremely concise: one sentence followed by a list of return elements. Every part is informative and there is no wasted text. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and return types. However, it lacks details on edge cases (e.g., invalid orderId, no active order states) and does not explain the return structure more fully. With no output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (orderId) with its optionality and default behavior. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 tracks an active order's status, listing specific return elements (order status, estimated delivery time, driver info, order details). The verb 'track' and resource 'order status' are explicit, and the function is distinct from sibling tools like ubereats_status by focusing on active orders.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ubereats_status, nor does it mention when not to use it (e.g., for non-active orders). The lack of usage context limits the description's helpfulness.

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