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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely useful non-annotation context: the order must be the authenticated customer's, i.e. an authorization/ownership constraint, and results come back 'normalized.' It does not disclose rate limits, freshness, or empty-result behavior.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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 two-parameter read tool with an existing output... there is no output schema, so the description would ideally say a little about the tracking event shape or ordering. It covers the ownership constraint adequately but leaves localization and return-format questions entirely to inference.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a single order identifier ('one authenticated customer order') but never mentions languageCode, which is a required parameter governing localized output — a meaningful gap the schema does not fill either.

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?

Specific verb ('read') plus resource ('normalized tracking events') and scope ('one authenticated customer order') make the function unambiguous relative to orders_get/orders_list. It stops short of naming siblings or stating what 'normalized' means, so it is clear but not maximal.

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 when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives like orders_get or orders_list, despite many order-related siblings. The only implicit usage signal is 'one ... order,' which implies a single orderId rather than a list.

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