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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable data-interpretation caveat: amounts are bare numbers with no currency, and it names get_organization_settings as the prerequisite for currency_code, which is behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema or 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope; the second sentence adds only necessary currency context. No redundant or filler text.

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 simple by-ID get with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the returned detail categories and addresses the non-obvious currency representation. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so nothing needed for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100% and the sole id parameter is documented as a UUID with description 'Work order ID'. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 (get) and resource (work order) and scope (by ID), plus the fields returned (description, dates, costs, completion details). It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the many sibling get_* and list_work_orders tools, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Implies retrieval by ID, which is clear for a get tool, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus list_work_orders or related get_work_order_comment/schedule tools, and no exclusions.

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