roamzy_order_status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the status progression sequence, the presence of pay_url during waiting, the instruction to call get_esim after finished, and the msisdn guidance. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact but information-rich workflow. It is three sentences and every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured. Still highly concise for the amount of guidance packed in.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered elsewhere. The description completes the picture by explaining the status lifecycle, the pay_url special case, the handoff to get_esim, and how to refer to the eSIM. It leaves no critical gaps for a polling tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the order_id parameter is already described as 'Internal intent_id from create_order. Never shown to the user.' The description does not add much about the parameter itself, though it reminds not to use intent_id when referencing the order to the user. Baseline 3 applies since schema handles the semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Poll the status of a pending order.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings by focusing on the order status workflow and even references get_esim as a downstream action. This is not a vague restatement of the tool name.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and alternatives: while waiting, re-surface pay_url instead of starting a new order; once status=finished, call get_esim. It also tells the agent how to use the response (refer to msisdn). This fully guides selection and next steps.

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