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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive read with no open-world access, so the description’s main value is explaining status lifecycle semantics such as pending_approval, paid, declined, update_available, and free_update. That is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not explain the receipt structure or not-found behavior.

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 compact and mostly front-loaded with the core purpose, then spends its remaining space on status semantics. It is not bloated, though the opening sentence could be sharper as an explicit action statement.

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 read-only lookup with complete parameter documentation and no output schema, the description provides enough context about the order object and its possible statuses. It could be stronger by mentioning how to obtain order_id or what happens for invalid ids, but it is largely complete for the call itself.

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 both order_id and passport_token are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, 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 identifies the resource as a single order belonging to the caller and notes it includes the receipt, which distinguishes it from a list operation. It is clear in combination with the title and tool name, though the first sentence is noun-phrase phrasing rather than an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'show'.

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 explains what different order statuses mean but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_orders or other order-related siblings. The schema notes order_id comes from buy, but the description itself does not route the agent to alternatives or prerequisites.

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