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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context by disclosing the shape of the payload (line items, addresses, payment method, notes, totals, customer info), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of mentioning error behavior for invalid 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 sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return inventory as a compact appendix. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple, two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it, and notably compensates for the absent output schema by listing returned fields. The only gap is the absence of any note about failure/not-found behavior.

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 100%: 'id' (Order ID) and 'site_id' (with multi-site guidance) are fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the ID lookup, adding no syntax, range, or multi-site semantics beyond the structured fields, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get full details of a WooCommerce order') with an explicit scope ('by ID') that separates it from woo_list_orders, and enumerates exactly what the payload contains. An agent can identify the tool without opening the 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?

The 'by ID' scoping implies the tool is used when a specific order identifier is known, which implicitly contrasts with the listing tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative (e.g. woo_list_orders for browsing). Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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