roamzy_order_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses behavior: the status progression, the inclusion of msisdn in the response, and guidance to avoid exposing internal IDs. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or rate limits, but for a poll tool, this is adequate.

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 compact: two sentences and a note. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a sequence tip and a usage instruction. No redundant or superfluous content.

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 tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how status progresses, what to do next, and how to refer to results. Lacks mention of polling frequency or timeout, but is sufficient for basic use. The sibling 'roamzy_status' is not addressed, which is a minor gap.

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 parameter 'order_id' has 100% schema description coverage, already explaining it as an internal intent_id. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing its usage context, but does not significantly extend beyond the schema.

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 action ('Poll the status of a pending order') and the resource (order status). It specifies the status progression and includes a follow-up action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_esim.

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 provides clear context: use for pending orders and to retrieve status, with a specific instruction to call get_esim when status=finished. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'roamzy_status', which could cause confusion.

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