get_order_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by noting that personal fields are redacted—a behavioral detail not captured in annotations. This complements the safety profile well without contradiction.

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 extremely concise—two clauses covering action and a key behavior—with no wasted words. The verb 'Read' is front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, output schema present, rich annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does and a privacy-related behavior. Minor omission: no mention that the output includes only status (though assumed), but output schema likely fills the 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the order_id parameter, but it does not. The schema itself provides format constraints (pattern, length), yet the description adds no semantic meaning about what constitutes a valid order_id or how to obtain it.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'one order's current status', which precisely defines the tool's function. The additional note about redacted personal fields sets it apart from sibling tools like order_history, making the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like active_orders or order_history. The description does not mention when to prefer this single-order status read over other order-related sibling tools, leaving the agent without decision support.

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