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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds return-content context (status, total, line items), which matters because there is no output schema, but says nothing about not-found/error behavior or access requirements.

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 clause with no filler that puts the returned fields first. Slight loss for being a fragment that omits the action verb entirely.

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-record read with rich annotations and a fully documented single parameter, this covers the essentials plus a return-field summary in lieu of an output schema. Only error/not-found handling and the list-vs-get routing are left implicit.

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 lone parameter is documented as "From list_change_orders," so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about the ID format or provenance, which is the expected baseline for full coverage.

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 names the resource and its returned fields ("One change order or request with description, status, total and line items"), and the singular framing implicitly separates it from the list_change_orders sibling. However it never states the verb explicitly or mentions lookup by identifier, so the retrieval action must be inferred from the tool name.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_change_orders (which is referenced only indirectly via the ID param) or get_job_costing. No prerequisites, no mention of what to do when the ID is unknown.

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