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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the required 'orders:read' permission scope and the need for a free GPU Cloud account and MCP key, which an agent needs before attempting the call.

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?

A short, front-loaded fragment that delivers the core action first, followed by permission and account preconditions. No filler, though the parenthetical metadata makes it read more like a terse note than a structured guideline.

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-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the action, the accepted identifier forms, the required permission, and the account prerequisite. Return-value and error semantics are left unstated, but the annotation set makes this largely adequate.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does usefully state that orderId accepts either an internal id or a payment reference of the form GPU-CMD-..., which the bare schema property name would not convey. It leaves the exact id format loosely specified, hence not a 5.

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 (one order), and scopes it as single-record retrieval by id or payment reference. This distinguishes it from the sibling list_orders, though it stops short of naming that alternative.

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 phrase 'One order by id or payment reference' implies this is the single-record lookup used when you already have an identifier, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over gpucloud_list_orders or what conditions select it. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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