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

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds that money is in minor units (paise for INR) and that a linked return is included if present, which are non-obvious behavioral details not covered by 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler. The second sentence conveys currency units and ID sourcing efficiently.

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 a robust output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently explains scope (single order), included data, and currency units. It could be slightly more explicit about differentiation from get_oms_order but is adequate.

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 descriptions cover both parameters at 100%. The description adds that these identifiers come from search_orders, providing sourcing context beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves full detail for a single order by channel and line-item ID, distinguishing it from summary/list tools like get_orders_summary and search_orders. It also specifies included data (linked return, channel-specific fields), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 description instructs to obtain channel and lineItemId from search_orders, establishing a clear workflow. It implies use when full single-order detail is needed, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_oms_order.

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