get_order_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get,' implying a read operation, but does not disclose return format, error handling, authorization needs, or whether the status is real-time or cached. This minimal disclosure leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 one short sentence that directly conveys the tool's action and input. No superfluous words or repetition, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 read tool, the description is minimally viable but lacks any detail on the response structure or potential edge cases (e.g., invalid order ID). Without an output schema, the agent has no indication of what data will be returned, leaving a gap for a tool that otherwise is quite straightforward.

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's 'by ID' merely echoes the schema without adding new meaning such as format, required format, or examples. Per the baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'get' with a clear resource 'order status' and specifies the lookup key 'by ID.' This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_order, refund_order, or get_auth_token.

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 purpose implicitly indicates this is for retrieving status, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like refund_order or preauth_order. The description provides no exclusions or comparison with siblings, so usage is only implied.

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