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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new context: the distinct 'read:sales' permission requirement, the fact that it is free, and that the response includes items and buyer details. This is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured hints.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the key operational constraints (permission, id source, cost). No filler; every clause carries information.

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 and strong annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete: it names what is returned, the required permission, the id provenance, and the cost profile. Only a note on error behavior when the orderId is unknown is missing.

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 100%, so the single orderId parameter is already fully documented, including its provenance. The description's 'Pass the exact orderId from soclo_sales_orders' reinforces but does not extend that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 one website order and its items, including buyer details') and scopes it to a single record, which clearly separates it from the sibling list tool soclo_sales_orders. An agent can distinguish this from the other soclo_sales_* tools without opening a 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?

It directs the agent to source the identifier from soclo_sales_orders, which implies the use case (fetch a single order after listing). However, it does not explicitly state when-not to use it or contrast with other read siblings like soclo_sales_customers or soclo_sales_bookings.

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