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 discloses the scope of returned data (an aggregation across usage records, payment orders, and tickets), which is genuinely useful, but never states that this is a read-only operation, whether it hits rate limits, or what permissions are needed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the operation and then lists its outputs. There is no filler, hedging, or redundant restatement.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does double duty and partially compensates by enumerating return contents. However, for an 'investigation' tool sitting among several overlapping order/trace lookups, the missing routing guidance and read-only assurance leave real gaps.

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%, so both parameters are already documented; the description's restatement of 'order number or track & trace' duplicates the schema's own wording. The intentId parameter (tied to RecordUserQuestion) is not mentioned in the description at all.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Full order investigation') and enumerates the payload ('order details, usage records, payment orders, related tickets'), which separates it from thin lookups like FindOrder or FetchWebshopOrder. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 phrase 'by order number or track & trace' implies when the tool applies, but there is no guidance on when to choose it over FindOrder, FetchWebshopOrder, LookupByTrackTrace, or InvoiceInvestigation. Usage is left to inference from the description's breadth.

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