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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context that local WordPress authentication is used and no WooCommerce REST API keys are needed, implying potentially different field coverage than the REST endpoint. It does not say what is returned or what happens for an invalid/inaccessible order ID.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The second sentence earns its place by flagging the authentication model, though it is implementation-flavored detail an agent only marginally needs.

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 single-record getter with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition is close to adequate. However, with no output schema, the description does not describe the shape of the returned order or failure behavior for a missing ID, leaving a real gap for callers.

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%, including the important note that site_id must come from list_sites and not a URL or post ID, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format, range, or validity detail about orderId beyond what the schema already states, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Gets one WooCommerce order by ID'), and the word 'one' plus 'by ID' implicitly separates it from the list-style sibling wc_get_orders. It stops short of explicitly naming that alternative, so it isn't a fully discriminating 5.

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: an agent should call this when it already has a single order ID. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. use wc_get_orders to search or list, use wc_get_order_meta for metadata), and the schema's site_id note about calling list_sites first lives in the schema rather than the description.

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