get_order_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it returns status and progress, which is essentially a paraphrase of the tool name. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only (though implied), any required permissions, potential errors, or what happens for invalid order IDs. This is a significant gap given the lack of 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 two sentences, with the primary action stated first and the usage context second. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage but lacks detail about the return structure or error behavior. Since there is no output schema, the agent may not know what 'status' and 'progress' look like, but the tool's simplicity somewhat mitigates this. Overall, it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter 'order_id' with 100% coverage. The description adds contextual meaning by specifying that it is for 'a previously placed order,' which helps the agent understand that the ID refers to an existing order. This adds slight value beyond the schema's basic description.

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's function: 'Return current status and progress for an order by ID.' The verb 'return' is specific, and the resource is clearly an order. It conveys scope (status and progress) but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'list_orders' or 'get_notification_status', though the focus on order status is implied.

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 gives a direct usage instruction: 'Use this to check on a previously placed order.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is explicit enough for an agent to select this tool for checking order status.

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