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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context beyond them: the required OAuth scope (orders:read), and the semantic that 'saved' means submitted but not store-confirmed, with unavailable history or confirmation fields returning null. It does not discuss rate limits or error behavior, but the null-field disclosure is the kind of nuance annotations cannot express.

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?

Four tight sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose/provenance, alternative routing, the submitted-vs-confirmed semantics, and auth scope. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero filler.

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 single-parameter read with an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it reads, which ID is valid, when to prefer get_checkout, what null means, and the scope required. Return-value structure is correctly left to the output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already defines order_id as an ID returned by this application's submission for the same buyer session, so the description largely restates the schema. It adds no format or boundary detail (e.g. the 1..2147483647 range) beyond what the structured field provides; 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 (Read) and resource (a saved order) and pins the identifier's provenance: the order_id returned by this application's submit_order for the same buyer session. It explicitly contrasts with get_checkout, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use this for a submitted/saved order, use get_checkout for one not yet submitted. It also states the reauthorization case still works, which is exactly the ambiguous situation an agent would hesitate on.

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