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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the returned data (lines, AWB, invoice state) and an environment limitation ('Demo shop (sample data)'), which is a non-obvious behavioral trait.

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 short sentences with no filler, front-loading the core return content before the environment constraint. It is appropriately terse for a simple GET operation, though the constraint could be better integrated.

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?

Given the output schema and rich annotations, the description need not explain return values or safety. However, it omits usage guidance and fails to clarify the required 'id' parameter, leaving the definition minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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 50%: the 'account' parameter is documented, but the required 'id' parameter has no description in the schema. The tool description does not explain the 'id' format, origin, or usage, leaving a critical gap for the mandatory parameter.

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 states a specific retrieval action ('One order with its lines, AWB and invoice state'), clearly distinguishing it from list-oriented siblings like orders_list. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the resource and scope are clear.

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 only guidance is 'Works on: Demo shop (sample data),' which is an environment constraint rather than when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions for selecting this tool over orders_list or invoices_get.

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