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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is already clear. The description adds the bulk execution capability, which is important behavioral info beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention return format, but given the read-only nature, that's acceptable.

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 very concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and endpoint, and a second line for bulk support. No wasted words.

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?

It's a simple read operation with no output schema, and the annotations cover safety. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly: specify an id or ids. The `account` parameter is not mentioned, but it's likely optional context. Given the complexity, this is adequate.

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 burden. The description mentions `id` and bulk support via `ids`, which adds meaning to parameters beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain `account` or the format of `id` (string/number), but the schema already shows types. Since the description says 'by id' and 'ids for batched execution', it covers the key parameters.

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 it details an order by `id`, and the mention of 'pedido.obter.php' ties it to a specific endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tiny_list_orders (which lists orders) by focusing on a single order detail. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_* tools (get_contact, get_invoice) but that's clear from the resource name.

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?

It mentions bulk support and refers to 'pedido.obter.php', which gives some context. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over tiny_list_orders or other get_* tools, but the purpose is clear. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so this is adequate but not explicit.

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