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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context beyond that: amounts are bare numbers with no embedded currency, and currency_code must come from get_organization_settings. That prevents the agent from misreporting monetary values.

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 and returned fields come first, and the currency caveat follows as the operationally important addendum. 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and flagging the currency caveat, which is the main hazard for this single-parameter read. It is essentially complete for a simple read-only lookup, though it doesn't mention behavior on a missing or invalid ID.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented as a UUID with a format pattern. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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') and pins the scope with 'by ID', which distinguishes it from list_change_orders. It goes further and enumerates the key returned fields (amount, status, vendor, linked project), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves.

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 'by ID' phrasing implies the lookup-by-identifier use case and the currency note explicitly routes the agent to get_organization_settings before stating an amount. It stops short of naming list_change_orders as the alternative for enumeration or any exclusions, so it's clear but not fully prescriptive.

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