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 the kind of information returned (passed steps, refusals, reasons) and implicitly signals a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side-effect freedom, error behavior, or response shape.

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 short sentence delivers the core meaning with no filler. It is concise and front-loaded, though it is a noun phrase rather than a structured imperative, so it is not a perfect 5.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description is thin: it names result categories without specifying return format, error cases, or any call context. An agent would have to infer how to present the answer to a user.

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 input schema has one self-descriptive order_id string and 0% schema description coverage. The description ties the parameter to an order but adds no detail about where the ID comes from, its format, or valid values, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states what the tool reports—order status, completed steps, refusals, and their reasons—which clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from mutation tools like create_order or run_step. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource construction, so it loses a point, but the meaning is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pending_confirmations or verify_journal. The description implies a status-checking use case but never states conditions, prerequisites, or what should trigger this call.

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