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

Goes well past the annotations (which only cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive) by disclosing that the customer contact address is masked, that no payment identifiers are returned, and that money values are minor-unit integers with Stripe-style examples for USD vs JPY plus the paired currencyCode. That is exactly the kind of output-shape and privacy context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 tight sentences: scope first, then the privacy limits, then the numeric encoding rule. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what record, what is hidden, how money is represented) is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers return contents, data masking, and amount encoding thoroughly. It stops short of error/not-found behavior and the origin of the orderId, which an agent would still need to infer.

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 0% and the single orderId parameter carries only type/format uuid, so the description must compensate. It says the tool takes "one storefront order" and references "the order's currencyCode," which hints at the identifier, but never states the expected format or where to source the ID. Partial compensation only.

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 ("the public record of one storefront order") plus the exact contents returned: line items, fulfillment, refunds, event history. The singular "one storefront order" implicitly separates it from the list-style sibling find_orders, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call find_orders first to obtain an orderId, no prerequisites, and no note on what to do when the ID is unknown or the order is not found. Usage is only inferable from the purpose sentence, which is the definition of no guidance.

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