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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real information beyond them: amounts are bare numbers with no currency, and a dependent call to get_organization_settings is required before presenting money values. It omits not-found/error behavior, but the currency caveat is a substantive addition.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded and the currency caveat as a follow-up instruction. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the categories of returned detail, and the currency handling is explicitly addressed. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid/unknown ID), which keeps this short of a 5.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Work order ID", uuid format), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's "by its ID" adds nothing beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 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 ("Get detailed information about a specific work order by its ID") and even enumerates the returned fields (description, dates, costs, completion details). The "by its ID" phrasing implicitly separates it from list_work_orders, but it never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the split itself.

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 description gives one genuinely useful cross-tool instruction (call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating an amount), but it does not address when to use this tool versus list_work_orders or the other work-order getters. Usage is only implied by the single-ID shape.

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