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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is fully covered. The description adds some return-content context (status, remaining actions, file number) but, with no output schema present, it leaves the shape and meaning of those fields underspecified.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; it states the return content immediately. It is slightly compressed to the point that 'a signed formation's status' momentarily reads as being about a formation rather than an order.

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 no output schema, the description gives a partial picture of the return value but doesn't explain what the status values mean or what the 'owner still has to do' field contains. Adequate, but not complete enough to fully substitute for the missing output schema.

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 the id and token parameters are already documented, including where the token comes from. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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 names the resource (a signed formation order) and the exact information returned: status, outstanding owner actions, and state file number. It is clear what the tool does, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby get_formation sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 statement of when to call this tool versus get_formation, get_application, or the other retrieval siblings. The only implied usage is 'fetch an order', with no prerequisites or exclusions called out.

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