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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: PII-redaction policy, the inclusion of related returns/disputes, and the refusal behavior for non-seller orders.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted words. The core action and resource scope are front-loaded, followed by the relevant payload details and the key exclusion condition. Every sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context to call it correctly: it states the input, the seller scope, the refusal behavior, and what the response will include. No output schema exists, but the listed return contents cover the key information an agent needs.

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 order_id parameter is already documented as 'UUID of the order to fetch.' The description does not add new parameter-level semantics, but it does reinforce the single-order scope. With full schema coverage, 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 names a specific verb ('Fetch'), a precise resource ('a single seller-scoped order'), and enumerates the payload contents (shipping address, items, shipment, payment status, returns/disputes). It also distinguishes itself from generic order tools by emphasizing the seller scope and the refusal behavior for non-seller 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?

The description clearly communicates the seller-scoped context and the key exclusion condition ('Refuses if the order isn't against this seller'), which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as orders_get or seller_list_orders, so the routing guidance is implicit rather than fully explicit.

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