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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds crucial context beyond them: that it requires the original authorized key, performs no new purchase, and is the recovery path after a lost response. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key operational rule. No waste.

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?

Covers the safety and recovery behavior well, but with 0% parameter coverage and no output schema, an agent still lacks detail on what the retrieved result looks like and how order_id/product map to the authorized key. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, and the description mentions 'the original authorized key' which is not a documented parameter (params are order_id and product). It does not explain order_id or product semantics, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap and introduces an undocumented key concept.

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 (retrieve) and resources (purchased result, quote or refund state), and emphasizes retrieval vs the sibling buying tools. However, it doesn't map cleanly to which sibling orders correspond, and the resource names are somewhat abstract.

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?

Provides a concrete when-to-use rule: always retrieve before creating another order after a lost response. This directly addresses a failure mode and distinguishes it from the buy_* siblings, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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