uber_eats_track_active_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does clarify the scope (active only) and notes it's 'lighter' (suggesting reduced payload/complexity), but it doesn't disclose return format details, whether it includes historical data, or the exact statuses covered despite having an output schema that could carry some of that burden.

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?

Two tightly-written sentences with zero waste. It states the purpose, scope, and the comparison to the sibling tool efficiently. Front-loaded with the essential info in the first clause.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema provided, the description is largely complete. It names the statuses covered, distinguishes itself from the heavier sibling tool, and the output schema covers return structure. Minor gap: doesn't explain what 'lighter' concretely means (e.g., no itemized details per order) but overall adequate for complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (an empty schema is fully documented). With 0 params, the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns (active order statuses) even though there's nothing to parameterize.

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 in-progress/active orders only, with a specific verb (track) and resource (active orders). It provides scope (delivery, preparing, etc.). It's distinguishable from sibling uber_eats_track_orders by noting it's 'Lighter than track_orders,' though it doesn't fully enumerate what track_orders includes beyond not being active-only.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you need active/in-progress orders specifically—and contrasts it with track_orders by saying it's lighter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name the alternative for full order tracking. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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