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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the field list — no error behavior for unknown order ids, no permission or rate-limit notes — so it contributes little on this dimension.

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 a single terse fragment with no filler, and the most useful content leads. But it is a verbless noun phrase rather than a structured statement, which reads as under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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 the returned fields (status, dates, tracking) did not need restating here, and annotations cover the safety profile. The genuine gaps — how it differs from list_orders/get_quote and behavior on a missing order — are minor for such a simple one-parameter read tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema description is richer than the tool description, naming the ord_... prefix and the sources (list_orders, paid quote). Baseline 3 applies since the schema does all 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 fragment names the resource (order) and enumerates the data it surfaces (status, ship-by/arrive-by dates, tracking), so an agent can infer this is a single-order lookup. However, it supplies no verb and gives no signal distinguishing it from list_orders or get_quote, so the purpose is only implied.

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?

The description says nothing about when to call this tool versus list_orders (bulk) or get_quote (pre-purchase). The only routing hint, 'from list_orders or the paid quote', lives in the input schema, not the description.

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