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

The description explicitly claims 'Reads only. Free.' while the annotations set readOnlyHint to false, indicating the tool is not marked as read-only. This is a direct contradiction. No other behavioral context beyond 'Free' is provided, and the safety profile is therefore unreliable.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose, lists the return contents, and appends two short qualifiers. It avoids filler and is appropriately compact, though the field list makes it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 compensates by detailing the return contents (site, parts/labour lines, billing units, hours, materials, net/VAT, status history). It does not mention error cases or ambiguity handling beyond the schema, but for a single-work-order read with one well-documented parameter, the coverage is largely sufficient aside from the read-only contradiction.

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 100%, and the single parameter's schema already explains that work_order can be an ID like WO-2026-0001 or a client name when only one job is theirs. The description mostly restates this ('by WO number or client') without adding new semantic depth.

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 ('Return'), a specific resource ('one work order'), and a complete scope ('in full by WO number or client'). It enumerates the included fields (site, lines, unit billed, hours, materials, net, VAT, status history), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like work_order_list and work_order_status.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need the full detail of a single work order identified by WO number or client. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as work_order_list (for multiple) or work_order_status (for status only), nor does it state any when-not-to-use conditions.

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