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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: an authentication requirement and a domain caveat that 'awaiting bank settlement' does not imply funded or paid to a subcontractor, which prevents a likely misinterpretation of returned state.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the two caveats an agent most needs. No filler, though the settlement clause is phrased in a way that reads as a domain warning without full context.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers authentication and a state-interpretation caveat. It still omits what the order object contains and what the id refers to, which an agent needs to call it correctly the first time.

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?

There is exactly one parameter, 'id' (uuid), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never says what 'id' identifies or where the caller obtains it, so it adds no meaning over the bare schema. With a single undocumented parameter, a low score is warranted despite the small parameter count.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read your managed-service order'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like read_managed_service_quote or get_managed_bounty_review. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is distinct from, but the resource noun does most of the work.

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?

'Website account session required' establishes a precondition for calling it, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over read_managed_service_quote or related sibling reads, leaving the choice implicit.

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