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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description's remaining contribution is that the response includes line items, which is genuinely new information given there is no output schema and helps an agent avoid an extra call.

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 sentence with zero padding and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves several relevant behaviors unaddressed rather than being a model of well-structured disclosure.

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 one-parameter read tool whose annotations already cover safety, the description is close to sufficient and does disclose that line items are returned. It stops short on identifier semantics and on what happens when the order is not found, which an agent needs before invoking.

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 0% and the description says nothing about the single parameter. It never confirms that order_id is the required identifier, what format it takes, or whether it is the internal order ID versus a customer-facing number. The schema's field name is self-evident, but the description adds no compensating meaning.

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 ('Get') and resource ('sales order') and adds the useful scope detail that the order's lines are included in the result. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_sales_orders or get_purchase_order, but the singular 'one sales order' phrasing makes the fetch-one-vs-list contrast inferable.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one sales order' suggests use this when you already have an identifier, versus list_sales_orders for browsing. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the required order_id as the selection condition, and no guidance on error behavior for unknown IDs.

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