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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the auth/channel prerequisite ('Requires HGRApi Header channel'), which is genuine added context, but omits failure behavior (e.g., what happens when the reference is not visible to the caller) and result characteristics.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is dense but carries the auth prerequisite, so it earns its place; a small deduction for its compressed, slightly ambiguous phrasing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and both parameters are fully documented in schema. What is missing is sibling disambiguation against hgr_post_sales_loadprogress and any note on error/empty behavior when the referenced order is not visible, leaving an agent with a plausible but not fully resolved choice.

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 both parameters are documented structurally and the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning over the schema, and the phrase 'ChannelOAuthId resolved internally' sits awkwardly against a schema where channelOAuthId is a required, caller-supplied integer, creating mild ambiguity rather than clarifying it.

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 and resource ('Reads progress for an order') plus a scoping qualifier ('resolved from visible order Reference'), so an agent understands what it retrieves. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling hgr_post_sales_loadprogress, leaving ambiguity about which 'load progress' endpoint to choose.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named despite an obvious overlapping sibling (hgr_post_sales_loadprogress). The only usage-adjacent content is a prerequisite statement about the HGRApi header channel, which is stated tersely and without explaining caller action.

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