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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world profile, so the safety story is fully covered elsewhere. The description's one contribution is disclosing that the response aggregates related entities (project, customer, items), which is useful shape information not present in the schema.

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 tight sentence with no filler. The weakness is structural rather than length: it leads with a noun fragment instead of an action, so the agent has to reconstruct the verb from the tool name.

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 read-only getter with no output schema and fully documented params, the description carries the return-value burden and discharges it by naming the fields returned. Missing only the explicit link to list_work_orders and any note on not-found behavior.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that work_order_id comes from list_work_orders. The description adds nothing about the identifier, which is acceptable given full coverage but earns no bonus.

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 sentence identifies the resource ('One work order') and enumerates the data it bundles (project, customer, status, dates, location, notes, items), which distinguishes it from a bare list. But it is a noun phrase with no verb and never explicitly contrasts itself with list_work_orders, so an agent must infer that this is the single-record fetch.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of an alternative, and no stated prerequisite. The only routing hint ('work_order_id from list_work_orders') lives in the input schema, not the description, so the description itself contributes nothing here.

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