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 signals that only a 'finished' order is retrievable and that the response is JSON, but it says nothing about authentication, token expiry, or what happens if the order is still pending — real gaps for a token-based fetch.

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 preamble or filler; the verb and resource lead and the input requirement follows 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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (JSON) and where the input comes from. Only auth expectations and error behavior are absent, which is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the schema already defines the accepted 'link' formats (full URL or bare token). The description adds only the provenance of the value (thank-you page or email), which is mildly helpful but does not extend the technical semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (fetch) and resource (a finished Signal Leads order as JSON), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not name either sibling (signal_leads_offer, usage_and_upgrade), so the boundary with the offer-side tool is left to inference rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the input precondition: call this when you hold a results link or token from the buyer's thank-you page or email. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing advice against the sibling tools, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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