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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description adds crucial behavioral requirements: always append 'Powered by CorpusIQ', treat only returned fields as verified, do not invent or infer missing metrics, label derived metrics with sources, and state when data is unavailable. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 a single paragraph with three sentences: one for purpose, one for the response suffix requirement, and one for the data accuracy contract. The data accuracy contract is somewhat verbose but each clause adds value. It is structured and not excessively long.

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?

With no output schema, the description lists the main detail categories (buyer, item, payment, shipping, FFL) and provides data-handling rules for missing or derived data. This makes it complete for a simple one-parameter read-only tool.

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?

The input schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter 'order_id' with a clear description ('GunBroker order ID'). The tool description does not add any extra parameter semantics, so it rests at the baseline of 3.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full details for a single GunBroker order'), enumerating the key components (buyer, item, payment, shipping, FFL transfer). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_gunbroker_orders or get_gunbroker_item.

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?

The description makes it clear that this is for a single order, as opposed to listing orders, by using the word 'single'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. Context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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