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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the auth requirement of a Cotlet API key with access to the app, and the fact that the returned order notes are private ('only you can see'). It does not describe response shape or any rate limits, but the added auth/privacy context is meaningful.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the key resource, but the second sentence largely re-enumerates the same return fields (gross, net, fees, coupon, answers) already listed in the first, creating redundancy. Reasonably sized but not fully lean.

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 single-order getter with annotations covering the safety profile, one param at 100% coverage, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what will come back and the auth needed. The lack of return-format/pagination detail is minor here.

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 single order_id is already documented in the schema as coming from list_orders. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (get one order) and enumerates the data returned: items, gross/net amounts, fees, coupon, checkout answers, private notes. This makes the purpose unusable-confusable with a generic 'order' tool. It does not explicitly name payhip_list_orders as the sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation, but the single-order intent is clear.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over payhip_list_orders, and no stated prerequisites beyond the API-key note. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-order lookup.

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