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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is the return composition ('plus the holder and the note the rikma sees') and the members-only access rule, including that buyer contact is restricted. Useful context beyond structured fields, though no pagination or error behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, each sentence carrying distinct information (lookup, return shape, access rule). No filler.

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 simple 2-param read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is fetched, what is returned, and the access limitation. Only minor gaps around error behavior for a missing ref remain.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds the provenance of the ref format ('as POST /orders answered'), but the dual ref/orderId behavior is already in the schema, so this sits at the baseline for high coverage.

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), resource (one order of the rikma), and lookup key (by its ref). The word 'one' plus the reference to 'the list' cleanly distinguishes it from listRikmaOrdersTool without the agent opening either schema.

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?

Provides a clear access precondition ('Members only') and implies single-order retrieval versus the list variant. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of listRikmaOrdersTool when...' routing statement, but the context is unambiguous.

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