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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what is returned (order details plus complete SMS message history), which is meaningful given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about permissions, error behavior for invalid order IDs, or rate limits, leaving notable gaps for a mutation-free but data-heavy read.

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 single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the resource and the returned payload are both stated immediately.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials by naming what is returned (details plus SMS history) and scoping it to a single order. It lacks any guidance on failure modes or related tools, which keeps it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single, well-documented 'orderId' parameter, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description confirms retrieval is scoped to a specific order but adds no format, prefix, or validity detail beyond the schema.

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 ('order') and goes beyond a bare lookup by specifying scope: 'full details and complete SMS message history.' This differentiates it from list-style siblings like order_history and list_active_orders. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, so not a 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?

The phrase 'for a specific order' implies the tool is used when an orderId is known, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as order_history or get_number_messages. The agent must infer selection criteria from the name alone.

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