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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose useful traits: GET implies read-only, 'Fixed JSON' signals a stable response shape, and 'Explicit company required' warns that the company context is not inferred. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or pagination, which is a meaningful gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

Three short sentences with no padding, and the endpoint plus the required-company constraint are front-loaded. Slight cost from terse internal jargon ('Fixed JSON', 'Flat query fields') that reads like internal notes rather than agent-facing guidance.

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 return values needn't be described. Still, for a lookup tool in a large accounting API, the description omits what a sales order represents here, failure modes for an invalid orderId, and any relationship to related entities. Adequate to call correctly, thin on context.

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. It partly does: 'Explicit company required' explains company_name, 'Flat query fields' characterizes the opaque anyOf 'query' object, and orderId is evident from the path. But the query parameter's actual contents are deferred entirely to another tool rather than explained.

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 specific verb and resource via 'GET /api/v1/sales/orders/{orderId}', which unambiguously says it fetches one sales order. The {orderId} path segment implicitly separates it from list_sales_orders, but the sibling is never named, so 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?

'Explicit company required' gives a real prerequisite, and 'see describe_nextesy_operation for filters' routes the agent to a sibling for query construction. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus list_sales_orders, no when-not conditions, and no note on what happens when the order is not found.

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