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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that the response includes 'what can be done to it now', i.e. computed available next actions — which is not derivable from the schema. It does not say what happens for a missing or cancelled order.

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-fragment with no filler, and the key attribute ('Full') is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of being ungrammatical, which slightly hurts readability, but nothing is wasted.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does list the main sections. It omits error behavior for unknown order ids and does not clarify whether the payload is large or how the 'available actions' are represented, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.

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?

Only one parameter (order_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it adequately. The description adds no format, source, or resolution guidance for the id, so baseline 3 applies.

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 enumerates the contents of the response (lines, open/uninvoiced quantities, deliveries, invoices, available actions), which tells an agent this is the full-detail order read. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, so the operation itself ('retrieve') is only inferred. It also does not explicitly contrast with siblings like o2c_get_invoice or o2c_amend_order.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many order-related siblings (o2c_amend_order, o2c_confirm_order, o2c_ship_order, o2c_get_invoice). An agent must infer from the word 'Full' that this is the read-everything view, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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