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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful side-effect boundary with 'Does not establish payment,' but it does not explain permissions, history scope, error behavior, or what 'history' includes.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Both the purpose statement and the payment boundary earn their place.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description plus annotations are minimally sufficient to call it. However, with no output schema and no schema parameter description, the definition leaves order_id semantics and the scope of 'history' undocumented.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single required order_id parameter. It only implies that the parameter identifies the order; it does not clarify order_id format, source, constraints, or expected value.

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 uses a clear verb+resource: 'Read your order status and history.' It distinguishes this as a singular order retrieval versus list_orders, but does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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?

It gives no guidance on when to use this instead of list_orders, cancel_order, or payment-related siblings. The phrase 'Does not establish payment' is a useful boundary, but it is not a usage routing rule or an alternative-selection guideline.

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