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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavioral detail ('link re-issuable anytime, no cookies needed') and clarifies exactly which artifacts are returned. No contradiction with 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?

One dense sentence front-loads the main purpose and lists deliverables economically. Slightly busy, but there is no filler; it could add a publicId hint without much cost.

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 tool, the description covers invocation context and the key return artifacts. It does not describe the response shape or error conditions, but the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description should explain what publicId is and how to obtain it. It only implies it identifies the paid order; it does not state the expected value, format, or provenance.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: it returns download and document URLs for a paid order, enumerating the WAV download, PDF invoice, and PDF licence/certificate. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_order_status or get_track.

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 'PAID order' qualifier gives context that this is for completed purchases and that the link can be re-issued anytime, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus get_order_status or get_track.

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