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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying that only transitions are returned and that authorization requires the owning agent_id. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 three short fragments, each carrying distinct information: scope, related tool, and authorization requirement. There is no filler and no redundant restatement of the title.

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?

The tool is simple, read-only, has full schema coverage, and an output schema, so the description need not document return values. It covers purpose, scope, and auth adequately; the main remaining gap is that the complementary relationship with order_track is not expanded into an explicit when-to-use rule.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so order_id, agent_id, and session_token are already well documented. The description only reinforces that the owning agent_id is required, which largely duplicates the schema's own authorization note and adds no new parameter semantics.

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 title 'Get order events' names the resource, and the description narrows it to a 'lifecycle timeline' of 'transitions only', which clearly distinguishes it from a generic event list or tracking tool. The reference to order_track further situates its scope as complementary rather than overlapping.

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 implies use for lifecycle transitions and says to 'pair with order_track', but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over order_track or when not to use it. The pairing hint is useful context, but there is no explicit routing rule or exclusion condition.

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