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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that by specifying the GET endpoint, the returned data areas, and the bulk execution behavior. It stops short of mentioning auth requirements or rate limits, but this is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 two concise sentences with the main purpose and endpoint front-loaded, followed by the batch capability. There is no redundant wording or filler; every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers the core needs: endpoint, returned components, and batch support. The main gaps are the undefined 'account' parameter and lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter documentation burden. It explains 'id' ('por id') and 'ids' (bulk support), but it does not explain the optional 'account' parameter, which is left ambiguous. This partial compensation is helpful but incomplete.

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 clearly states the tool details an order by ID, includes the exact endpoint (GET /orders/{id}), and enumerates what is returned (itens, comprador, pagamento, envio). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mercadolivre_list_orders (listing) and mercadolivre_get_shipment (shipment-specific).

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 provides practical guidance for batch execution ('Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution'), which helps with the ids parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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