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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by enumerating the possible status values (created through canceled) and noting that failure reasons may be present, which tells the agent to expect partial or failed terminal states. It omits anything about permissions or latency, but that is minor for a lookup tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the return payload front-loaded before the usage hint. Nothing is redundant and no sentence fails to earn its place.

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 the description must convey return values, and it does so by naming the status field and its enumerated values plus the cost breakdown and failure reason. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is close to complete; only a note on what a missing/unauthorized order yields 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 in-schema with its provenance (from create_dfy_order or list_dfy_orders). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Returns one done-for-you order,' making the singular scope explicit against the plural sibling list_dfy_orders. It also enumerates what is returned (status, cost breakdown, failure reason). It does not explicitly name the sibling, so differentiation is implied by cardinality 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?

'Use it to track an order's provisioning' gives a clear usage context for polling/monitoring an existing order. However, it offers no exclusions or explicit alternative routing (e.g., to enumerate orders), so the agent must infer that from the singular scope.

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