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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds important context beyond annotations: the access token is required for authorization, only payment/video state and the private order link are returned, and video downloads remain on the website. These details materially affect how an agent uses and reports results.

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 compact sentences with no waste. The required credential pairing is front-loaded, followed by the prohibition and return scope, making the key constraints easy to scan.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately states what is returned: payment/video state and the private order link, with downloads excluded. Together with the explicit authorization requirement and usage prohibition, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains that both parameters are required together and that the accessToken is returned at order creation, adding useful provenance and authorization semantics. It does not describe the orderId UUID format, but the schema already enforces that pattern.

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: read a private order. It distinguishes the operation by requiring both orderId and accessToken, and clarifies that alternative lookup by email is invalid. The return scope is also stated, so an agent can identify the tool without inspecting its schema.

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?

Explicitly says to use BOTH orderId and accessToken returned at creation and explicitly says never to look up orders by email. This gives both the required invocation pattern and a clear exclusion, leaving little to inference.

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