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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational facts — it is free, it requires the orders:read scope, and it covers both single-order and list behaviour. The GDPR/PECR lawful-basis and audience-default material is context but is largely tangential to invoking the call, which keeps it off a 5.

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 core behaviour is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. However, the second half drifts into UK GDPR Article 6(1)(f) and PECR audience defaults that an agent calling get_order does not need, making the definition longer than its job requires.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers auth scope, cost, sequencing and the two calling modes. What remains is the compliance paragraph, which is extra rather than missing, so completeness is strong.

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%, so limit, cursor, status and order_id are already fully documented in the schema, including the enum and cursor contract. The description restates the omitted-order_id behaviour, which the schema also states, so it adds little beyond the structured fields — baseline 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 opening clause gives a specific verb and resource — returns one order's status — and enumerates the possible statuses plus the returned artefacts (counts, charges, licence, links). It also states the fallback behaviour when order_id is omitted, so the agent can tell exactly what this tool yields versus siblings like fetch_order_records.

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?

Explicit sequencing is given: use it after create_order to wait for ready, or rely on the order.ready webhook, and call fetch_order_records once status is ready. That names alternatives and the condition selecting each, which is the top bar for this dimension.

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