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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. Beyond that the description only lists returned fields; it says nothing about the include_pii sensitivity, cursor-based pagination of items, or what happens when 'include' is omitted, which are the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (one order, read) leads. It is efficient, though the trailing field list could be trimmed or repurposed to explain parameters.

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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and five parameters including a PII toggle and a cursor, the definition should carry return shape and parameter behavior. It provides only a short field enumeration, leaving the agent to guess at defaults and pagination.

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 description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. It names the resources that 'include' selects but never ties them to that parameter, and never explains include_pii, items_cursor pagination, or the workspace scoping requirement.

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?

"Read one order" is a specific verb+resource and the enumeration of returned sub-resources (items, fulfillments, payments, returns, refundable totals, available actions) makes the scope concrete. It implicitly separates itself from orders_list/orders_update by being a single-record read, though it never names a sibling.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus orders_list (browsing many orders) or orders_update (mutating one), and no prerequisites such as needing a workspace and order identifier. The only guidance is the implied "one order = single fetch," which the agent must infer.

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