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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the surprising multi-match behavior of numeric queries and how to disambiguate, but says nothing about read-only nature (only implied by 'Fetch'), auth/shop credential requirements, or failure modes for a tool hitting a live external API.

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-loads the core purpose and then packs disambiguation and routing details into a dense but mostly information-bearing block. A few clauses overlap (the multiple-match note is restated), but there is little 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 7-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers the tricky parts an agent needs: source systems, disambiguation strategy, and conditional parameter usage. It stops short of describing the returned order shape or error behavior, which leaves some completeness gap given the absence of an 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%, so baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning: concrete shopId example (2508), the externalOrderId-vs-prefixed-display-number distinction (Creme10129), and the use of recipientName/organizationQuery for disambiguation. However it references 'externalOrderId' and 'ordernumber_full' which do not appear as schema properties, introducing naming confusion.

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 with scope: 'Fetch an order from the live webshop API ... by order number or external order id,' and explicitly names the sibling it is not for (GetShopifyOrderLineItems). Slightly muddled by listing Shopify as a supported source while telling the agent to use it for WooCommerce/CCV shops, which blurs the boundary with the Shopify-specific tool.

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 explicit routing ('Use for WooCommerce/CCV shops, not GetShopifyOrderLineItems') plus conditional guidance: provide shopId when known, organizationQuery when the shop is unknown, recipientName when the number matches multiple shops. It doesn't address when to prefer this over the sibling FindOrder, but the primary selection condition is clear.

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