Order status

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

Read-only and open-world behavior is already covered by annotations, but the description adds genuinely new context: the endpoint is experimental and may require the logged-in account (KFC). It does not say what the status response contains, what statuses are possible, or what happens when the order is not found.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and kept to one sentence plus a caveat. The bilingual repetition adds length without new information, which slightly dilutes efficiency.

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?

A one-parameter read-only tool needs little, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema the description could reasonably indicate what a status result looks like, and the 'logged-in account' caveat is vague about whose account (merchant vs. customer).

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 single orderId parameter is already documented in the schema as the order number returned by place_order. The description only restates 'by orderId', adding no syntax or format detail (e.g., length constraints) 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?

States a specific verb and resource: check an order status by orderId. An agent can distinguish it from place_order and preview_order by name and description, though the description never contrasts it with session_status or explicitly says it applies to already-placed orders.

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?

Usage is implied (query a placed order using the orderId returned by place_order) but never stated as when-to-use vs. alternatives. The experimental caveat and account requirement are preconditions rather than routing guidance.

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