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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the 'authorized' qualifier, indicating authentication/authorization behavior, but doesn't explain what happens for unauthorized requests or whether the order must belong to the current customer. Some useful context beyond annotations, but limited.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It covers the resource and a key behavioral scope ('authorized') in very few words. Efficient and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter read tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema present, the description is mostly sufficient. The main missing element is routing guidance relative to list_orders or other order-related siblings, but the core invocation context is clear enough.

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%, and the description does not explain order_id at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no guidance on format, source, or semantics beyond what the schema's type and pattern already provide. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate and does not.

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 one authorized customer order.' The singular 'one' differentiates it from list_orders, and 'authorized customer order' clarifies scope. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like list_orders or get_cart, so it slightly misses full sibling differentiation.

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 phrasing 'get one authorized customer order' implies use when fetching a single order by ID, versus listing orders. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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