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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the buyer-side authorization scope, and exactly which order-related details are included in the result (line items, shipment, payment, returns, disputes).

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?

Two focused sentences with zero filler. The primary action and included content are front-loaded, and the sibling distinction is placed at the end where it serves as a useful routing note.

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-order fetch with one fully documented parameter, the description is complete: it states what data will be returned, identifies the correct access side, and the annotations provide the safety profile. No output schema is present, but the enumerated response facets give sufficient expectation-setting.

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 100% and the single parameter order_id is fully described as 'UUID of the order to fetch' with format and pattern constraints. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('a single order') and enumerates the contained data: line items, shipment/tracking, payment status, and associated returns or disputes. It also clearly distinguishes this buyer-side tool from the seller-side sibling, seller_get_order.

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 explicitly states this is the buyer-side view and directs the agent to seller_get_order for the seller-side equivalent. It also implies scope ('single order') versus the plural orders_list sibling, giving clear selection context.

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