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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the pre-intake caveat that items are unknown and the total is estimated, plus the two auth modes (connected account vs. order code + scheduling email).

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 no filler: the first enumerates the receipt contents, the second front-loads the state caveat and auth modes. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing returned fields, and it covers both the provisional pre-intake state and the auth paths. Minor gaps remain, such as error behavior for unknown order codes, but nothing critical is missing for a read-only lookup.

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 only 50% and orderCode has no schema description, but the description explains the relationship between the two parameters: use the connected account alone, or order code plus the email used when scheduling. That resolves the conditional requirement for email better than the schema's terse note.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates its contents (items, subtotal, fees, discounts, credits, tax, total, payment status), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It also implicitly differentiates itself from get_estimate by noting the total is only an estimate before intake.

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 line about pre-intake state gives useful context for when the receipt is provisional, and the auth sentence tells the agent how to call it. However, it never explicitly routes the agent away from siblings like get_estimate or list_my_orders, so when-to-use is only implied.

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