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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds one real behavioral fact, that no domain is involved, but says nothing about what the returned link contains or what happens on an invalid slug. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the sibling comparison is front-loaded. The brevity is close to under-specification rather than elegant economy, which keeps it from a 5.

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 three-parameter link generator, the schema fully documents inputs and the annotations carry the safety profile; the description only needs to distinguish it from build_cart_link, which it does. No output schema exists, and none is implied by this tool's apparent simplicity.

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 100%, so slug, currency and billing_cycle are already fully documented with patterns, enum values and error behavior. The description's 'without a domain' note usefully implies a parameter that build_cart_link has and this tool lacks, but adds no formatting meaning beyond the schema.

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 defines the tool only relative to a sibling ('Same as build_cart_link without a domain'), so its actual purpose is opaque to anyone who does not already know what build_cart_link does; the name 'get_order_link' is never unpacked. It does at least mark a concrete difference from a known sibling, which keeps it above tautology.

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?

'Kept for existing clients' implies this is a legacy path and that new work should use build_cart_link, but the routing is left implicit rather than stated. There is no explicit when-not or a named recommendation for new integrations.

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