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

Annotation Contradiction: annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, implying the tool may not be read-only, while the description says only 'Return one change order in full' and the title says 'Show one change order.' No side effects, locking, or state changes are disclosed, and the description contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a useful routing hint. The dense enumeration of return contents is long but substantive, though the ambiguous 'client' phrase slightly harms structural clarity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description helpfully enumerates the expected return contents. However, it omits not-found/error behavior, does not reconcile the readOnlyHint=false annotation with the apparent read-only behavior, and the 'client' wording leaves a gap in how the parameter maps to the schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the parameter as an id or title, which would normally warrant a baseline of 3. However, the description adds a misleading lookup mode: 'by CO number or client,' while the schema says 'id ... or its title when only one carries it.' This inconsistency makes the parameter semantics less reliable.

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: 'Return one change order in full' and enumerates what 'in full' means (lines, VAT, delta gross, status history, running value). It also distinguishes itself from change_order_list by noting that the list tool finds the id.

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 gives clear context for when to call this tool and even provides a prerequisite: 'change_order_list finds the id.' It does not exhaustively discuss alternatives like change_order_status or change_order_document, but the usage context is clear enough for a lookup tool.

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