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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds real value beyond them: the exact field set returned, the not-found failure mode, the manage_woocommerce capability requirement, the WooCommerce dependency, and the fact that the call is forwarded to a single reachable site (consistent with openWorldHint=false).

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then return shape, then failure mode, then prerequisites — a logical order with no filler. The closing routing sentence about AlphaBridge Connect is useful context but slightly extends the length.

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, so enumerating the returned fields (id, status, total, currency, customer, email, date, items, payment_method, note_to_customer) is exactly the missing piece, and prerequisites plus error behavior are also covered. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 already documented as the WooCommerce order number, including the renumbering caveat. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema states, so this is the baseline case where the schema does the work.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('get one order by id') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling list tool by noting that wp_wc_list_orders is what supplies the ids. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly says an unknown id produces a not-found error and points to wp_wc_list_orders as the way to discover ids, which is the main practical alternative. It stops short of spelling out when-not conditions (e.g. bulk retrieval, searching by customer) but the routing context is clear.

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