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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the required OAuth scope (orders:read) and the semantic caveat that 'saving means submitted, not confirmed by the store' and that unavailable history/confirmation data stay null. That null-handling disclosure is real behavioral value beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the data-semantics caveat and then the auth requirement. Dense but each clause carries information; only the final 'Read-only.' is redundant with 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?

With an output schema present, return structure need not be described, and the description still covers auth scope, session scoping, and null semantics for missing data. Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly; only an explicit alternative-tool pointer 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself explains that order_id is 'not an arbitrary store order' — so the description correctly defers to the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema is complete.

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 (Read) and resource (an order) with a precise scope qualifier: orders 'created by this application for the same buyer session.' This distinguishes it from sibling reads like get_product or get_checkout, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

It supplies a usage condition — the order must have been created by this application for the same buyer session, and remains readable after reauthorization — but never states when to reach for this tool versus get_checkout or submit_order. Usage is implied by scope rather than directed.

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