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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds which specific data is returned (line items, totals, status), notes that customer PII is not included, and mentions the company scoping requirement. This covers the main expected behaviors for a read operation, though it doesn't mention pagination or error handling, which are less critical.

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, front-loading the core action and output, then adding a usage note and routing hint. The final 'Routing:' line seems redundant, slightly reducing efficiency, but overall it is well-structured and each sentence earns 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?

For a simple get-by-id tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what data returns, when to use, and what it excludes. The mention of PII and company scoping adds value. Minor omission: it doesn't mention how to get all orders (though sibling list_shopify_orders exists), but the context is sufficient for agent usage.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions (order_id and companyId). The description's mention of 'id (gid://shopify/Order/...)' reinforces the parameter requirement but adds little beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool gets one Shopify order's details by ID, listing the exact data returned (line items, totals, statuses). It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('Shopify order'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_shopify_orders and get_shopify_product.

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 says 'Use when a person or agent needs to inspect a specific order's contents and status' and implies the alternative for listing orders (list_shopify_orders). It also explicitly notes customer PII is not returned, setting expectations for aggregate-only reads. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it, but the routing and context are clear.

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