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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. Because there is no output schema, the description carries the return-payload burden and does so by naming the concrete contents (items, shipping, cancellation terms, balance, deposit hold, signed agreement, buyer answers), which tells the agent to expect commercially sensitive and PII-bearing data and to size its response handling accordingly.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the highest-value information (that this returns the full record, not a summary) is front-loaded. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, which costs a little clarity but wastes nothing.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the field enumeration covers most of what an agent needs to know about the response. What remains missing is the relational context: when to prefer this over list_orders or update_order, and any notion of access limits on the sensitive fields it promises to return.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (site id and orderId) are already documented, including the cross-reference to list_orders. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies; the schema does the work, not the prose.

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 is a noun fragment naming the resource ('One order in full') and enumerating its contents, but never states the verb or scope explicitly. The title and the enumeration make retrieval of a single order inferable, and 'one' contrasts implicitly with the sibling list_orders, yet the differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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 prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the name and from the list_orders sibling that this is the single-record follow-up to a listing call; the only routing hint ('From list_orders') lives in the schema, not the description.

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