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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context that annotations cannot convey: amounts are bare numbers with no currency, plus the remediation step. It stops short of noting error behavior for a missing ID.

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, zero filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the currency caveat follows as the actionable footnote. Every clause earns its place.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does name the key fields. The currency gotcha is a meaningful addition for an agent composing a user-facing answer, though the description does not say what happens when the ID is invalid or unknown.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented (uuid format). The description only restates that lookup is by ID and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get a change order by ID') and enumerates the returned fields (amount, status, vendor, linked project). It implicitly separates itself from list_change_orders via 'by ID', though it never names the list 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?

Gives a concrete conditional workflow: call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating an amount. That is real when-to-use guidance, but there is no explicit statement distinguishing this tool from list_change_orders or get_vendor for related lookups.

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