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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: an Authorization Bearer mccf_ credential is required, and the response contains status, attempts and timeline. It does not mention rate limits or handling of unknown order ids.

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 sentences, audience and output content front-loaded, zero filler. It is perhaps overly compressed to the point of telegraphic style, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage, this is nearly enough: auth requirement and returned fields are stated. Missing is any hint about error behavior for invalid ids or whether an order belonging to another account is rejected, which matters given the account-scoped framing.

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 100% and the single parameter's description ("The order id from firm_orders") is already the same wording used in the tool description, so no meaning is added. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.

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?

"One order's status, attempts and timeline" names a specific resource and result set, and the singular "one order" plus the note that the id comes from firm_orders implicitly distinguishes it from the plural order-listing tool. It stops short of naming firm_orders as the sibling to use for lists, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 audience restriction ("For an approved MCC business account's assistant") and the pointer that the id comes from firm_orders imply the usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use versus firm_orders/firm_account/firm_invoices guidance or statement of when not to call it.

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