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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is to add beyond that — and it does, disclosing that a bank-transfer order on hold causes payment_instructions (bank details, amount, reference) to be repeated in the result. That is a non-obvious response quirk an agent would otherwise misread as stale data. It stops short of covering error/expiry behavior for invalid tokens.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, with the precondition and the bank-transfer caveat following in order of importance. Two clauses, no filler, though the token provenance slightly duplicates the schema.

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 full output schema and rich annotations, the remaining burden is behavioral quirks, and the significant one (payment_instructions repetition during a hold) is covered. Minor gaps remain around failure modes for an invalid or expired order_token and whether the order must belong to the calling agent.

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 id, order_token, and meta are already documented in the schema, and the description's note that the token comes from complete_checkout largely restates the schema text. Baseline 3 is appropriate; nothing new about parameter format or constraints is added.

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 ('Get an order by id') and ties it to the order resource rather than cart or checkout, which separates it from siblings like get_checkout and get_cart. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a concrete precondition: the caller must have an order_token produced by complete_checkout, which effectively tells the agent this is a post-checkout call. No exclusion or 'use X instead' guidance is offered for overlapping read tools such as get_checkout.

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