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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description still adds real behavior beyond them: currency and provider capture timestamps are unknown, totals are not profit, buyer addresses/payment payloads are withheld, quotes do not authorize label purchase, and the response is an envelope with explicit scope, provenance and typed errors. Those are the kind of omissions an agent cannot infer from hints alone.

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?

The opening is front-loaded and strong, but the body repeats itself: store:read consent is stated twice, the withheld buyer address/contact/payment list appears twice, and 'Use supercatch_get_order for this read in the connected account' is a self-referential tautology. The sentence 'Expired cursors require a fresh search' is also puzzling for a tool with no cursor parameter, so some text costs attention without earning it.

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 structure needn't be spelled out, and the description still notes the Baseline 1.0.0 envelope, provenance and unknown values. A few statements (cursor expiry, 'no persistent plans') are off-target for a single-order read, but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already defines order_id as the exact ID returned by supercatch_list_store_orders. The description only reinforces that the identifier must be exact and warns that unavailable/foreign targets fail, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema rather than new syntax or format detail.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — 'Inspect one exact owned order' — and immediately ties resolution to supercatch_list_store_orders. It also distinguishes itself from supercatch_list_order_items (bounded lines) and supercatch_get_order_label_rates (postage estimates), so an agent can pick it out of a 50+ tool namespace without opening a 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 routes the agent: use this for a single owned order, list_order_items for lines, get_order_label_rates for current postage. It also states the gating conditions (OAuth store:read, an approved owned store, live MANAGE_ORDERS permission) and the failure modes for foreign/deleted targets, which is unusually complete when-to-use guidance.

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