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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description then adds genuinely new behavioral detail about the returned queue states (QUEUED, PAUSED, RUNNING, DONE, FAILED), the seliee_collection_id and error fields, and the exact condition that flips `done` to true. It does not disclose what happens when neither identifier is supplied, which is notable given zero required parameters.

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 front-loaded sentence stating the action and identifiers first, then the return-state enumeration. The semicolon-separated clauses each add distinct information and there is no filler.

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 accurately compensates by documenting the response shape and the meaning of `done`, which is the main thing an agent needs after calling it. The remaining gap is the zero-required-parameter edge case (no identifier, or both identifiers), which a caller cannot resolve from the description alone.

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 must carry the parameter burden, and it does explain that the record is selected by order_id or order_uuid. It omits whether either is required, what occurs if both are null or both are passed (precedence), and any format expectations for the UUID, leaving the ambiguity of an all-optional selector unresolved.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Fetch a single collection order") and scopes it to one record, which cleanly separates it from the list_collections_orders sibling and from create/edit/delete_collections_order in the same family.

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 can infer this is the retrieval-by-identifier tool, but the description never names list_collections_orders as the alternative for browsing orders, nor states a condition that selects one over the other.

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