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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'look up'), what happens if multiple identifiers are provided simultaneously, pagination behavior despite having an _offset parameter, or any rate limits. The description provides only superficial behavioral context.

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?

The description is two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and then detail the identifier options. There is no fluff, though the mention of Triple Whale attribution data could be seen as tangentially relevant.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for a read-only lookup tool but incomplete. It omits crucial details like whether the tool mutates data, how pagination works (despite _offset), and what happens if no identifier is provided. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured safety guidance, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description adds some meaning by explaining that orderName is for user-facing IDs and orderId for Shopify numeric IDs, and that orderIds supports batch lookup, but this is largely redundant with the schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb (look up) and resource (a specific order), and details the fields returned (line items with product, variant, SKU, quantity, price, vendor). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_orders tool, which likely lists all orders, leaving a gap in sibling differentiation.

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 explains when to use each identifier (orderName vs orderId vs orderIds) and mentions a use case for batch lookup (cross-referencing with Triple Whale data). However, it does not state when to use get_order versus get_orders, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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