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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations cannot: the exact set of fields returned, which matters because there is no output schema. It omits error behavior for an invalid order_id and any per-store scoping caveat, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the payload contents front-loaded and the usage trigger trailing. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the one missing piece — the return contents. The only gap is the absence of any pointer to find_orders for the adjacent lookup case.

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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions, including the 'leave empty if you have only one store' guidance for store. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Full details of one order') and enumerates exactly what those details comprise (items, totals, status, customer, shipping address, notes), so the agent knows the payload shape before calling. It implicitly contrasts with the list-style sibling find_orders by scoping to 'one order', but never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Use when the owner asks about a specific order' gives a real trigger condition, which is better than nothing. However, it never names find_orders as the alternative for browsing/searching multiple orders, and gives no exclusion for cases where the order id is unknown — the agent must infer the routing itself.

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