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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond by disclosing that contact addresses are masked, that no payment identifiers are returned, and that amounts are integer minor units paired with currencyCode. These are exactly the operational details an agent cannot get from annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose/contents first, privacy handling second, unit conventions third. Front-loaded with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the returned contents and value conventions. It omits only edge behavior such as what happens when the order is not found or required access scope, which is minor for a read-only getter.

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 a single, self-evidently named parameter (orderId) and the schema supplies format=uuid and a strict pattern, so the type is documented structurally. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning about the identifier, so the schema effectively carries the parameter on its own.

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 (inspect) and resource (one storefront order) and enumerates the contents returned (line items, fulfillment, refunds, event history). The word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from find_orders, so an agent can tell search from single-fetch without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'one storefront order' versus the plural find_orders sibling, but the description never states when to use this versus search, nor any prerequisistes such as needing a known orderId. The context is inferable but not spelled out.

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