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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' sentence adds little. The valuable addition is disclosure of payload content — the order in full plus dispatched trips plus delivered tonnage — which the agent cannot learn from annotations and which matters because there is no output schema. Not-found behavior and any cap on returned trips are unstated.

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, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the usage trigger. Nothing extraneous; the 'Read-only' line is the only mild redundancy against the annotations.

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?

A single-parameter read tool with no output schema is well served by a description that enumerates what comes back. The remaining gaps — identifier format, empty/not-found result, whether the trip list is truncated — are minor for this complexity level.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must carry the load. It only implies that one specific order is addressed; it adds no meaning about identifier format, whether it is an internal ID or an external reference, or what happens with an unknown ID. The property name freight_order_id already conveys most of that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus its scope: 'Read one freight order in full, together with the trips dispatched against it and how many tons they have actually delivered so far.' That clearly separates it from list/create/update siblings and from a plain order getter, since it also aggregates trip and delivered-tonnage data.

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?

Gives an explicit decision context: 'Use to answer \'is this order covered?\' before creating another trip for it,' which ties the call to a concrete workflow step and gestures at the create-trip alternative. It stops short of naming when-not to use it or which sibling to pick for a bare order lookup without trip data.

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