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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond repeating the route and mentioning that describe_operation exposes native schemas, leaving no insight into return shape, errors, or lookup semantics.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the route, but the same sentence is duplicated word-for-word, which is pure waste. The remaining content is an operation ID and a pointer to describe_operation rather than useful context.

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 read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description should at least clarify the id parameter and the return value. Instead it leans entirely on annotations and an external describe_operation reference, leaving the 0%-covered parameters and response shape unexplained.

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 0% and the description says nothing about the required params.id or the optional query object. An agent gets no information about the identifier format, where the id comes from, or what the query parameter accepts, so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented 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 names a concrete verb and resource (GET work-orders by :id), so an agent can infer it retrieves a single work order. However, the sentence is just the raw HTTP route repeated verbatim twice, with no plain-language statement of what a work order record contains or why one would fetch it. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling list tool get_work_orders.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_work_orders (list) or get_work_orders_stats_summary. The only routing hint is a pointer to describe_operation for request schemas, which is about schema discovery, not about when this tool is the right choice.

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