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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explicitly states that customer PII is not returned (aggregate-only reads), which is a non-obvious behavioral constraint an agent must know before invoking. It also clarifies the ID format (gid://shopify/Order/...).

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The routing line at the end is slightly redundant with the first sentence, but it's short and serves as a quick summary. No wasted words overall.

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 read-only single-order fetch with 2 fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential context: what fields are returned, when to use it, and the PII limitation. It doesn't describe pagination or return format, but with no output schema and a simple fetch-by-id operation, this is acceptable. The PII disclosure is particularly valuable for an agent deciding whether to use this tool.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the gid format example and clarifies that companyId is a scoping parameter, but these are minor additions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one Shopify order's detail by id'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (line items with title/quantity/price, totals, financial/fulfillment status). It also distinguishes itself from list_shopify_orders by focusing on a single order's detail, and the routing line reinforces the purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Use when a person or agent needs to inspect a specific order's contents and status.' It also notes that customer PII is not returned, which helps an agent decide if this tool is appropriate for a PII-related request. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like list_shopify_orders, but the single-order vs. list distinction is clear from the description and sibling names.

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