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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the authorization model: orders:read scope plus the bound creator/supplier restriction. That is genuinely new behavioral context beyond structured fields. It stops short of describing what happens on unauthorized access or whether a stale version is returned.

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 tightly packed sentences with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and the permission constraint immediately after. No filler, though the phrasing 'business projection' is jargon that costs a little clarity for the space it occupies.

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 tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the key return content (version, allowed actions, cancellation limits) and the access constraint. What is missing — ID provenance — is minor relative to a low-complexity, annotated read.

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 0% for the single order_id parameter, so the description carries the burden and adds nothing — no format, no indication of where the ID is sourced. The schema does supply a regex pattern, which partially compensates, but the description never references the identifier at all.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Read the exact current order version') with a clear statement of what the projection contains: order version, allowed actions, and buyer cancellation limits. It is implicitly distinguishable from evuun_list_business_orders (single exact version vs. listing) and evuun_decide_business_order, though it never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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 establishes the access precondition ('Only the bound creator/supplier may read') and the required scope ('orders:read permission'), which tells the agent when the call will succeed. However, it gives no explicit routing guidance — no statement that order_id comes from evuun_list_business_orders, and no when-not-to-use case versus the list or decide tools.

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