check_order_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a live status check across three operational domains, implying a read-only diagnostic operation, but it does not state permissions, rate limits, caching behavior, or whether any state is changed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The action and status domains are stated immediately.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the input context and the status domains inspected. It does not describe the response shape, but with no output schema the description could optionally say more; the remaining gap is minor.

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 single order_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as a UUID. The description adds contextual scope ('existing local retail order') but no additional format, source, or example details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Check,' and a specific resource, order status, then enumerates the status domains: fulfillment, payment, and courier dispatch. It clearly distinguishes this read-only status lookup from sibling tools like create_order, search_catalog, and report_store.

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 phrase 'for an existing local retail order' establishes the context and prerequisite that the order must already exist. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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