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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this (read-only retrieval). It also discloses the delegation token requirement and nuanced status interpretation, providing transparent guidance on how the tool behaves and should be used.

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 relatively long but each sentence serves a distinct purpose (purpose, constraint, status interpretation, workflow guidance). It is front-loaded with the primary function. While it could be slightly condensed, its comprehensiveness justifies the length for a non-trivial tool.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (indicating return structure is documented separately), the description covers everything necessary: purpose, parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and behavioral transparency. There are no apparent gaps for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already describes all three parameters. However, the description adds valuable context for the buyer_delegation_token, explaining its purpose ('the delegation token from this buyer's checkout approval') and that it is required to read the order. This goes beyond the schema's description and aids correct usage.

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 'Retrieve details for an order by its ID' and lists the included information (items, status, shipping, tracking). While it is specific and unambiguous, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_orders', which lists orders rather than retrieving a single one.

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 extensive usage guidance: it explains the need for the buyer_delegation_token, how to interpret order status (pending/unpaid), warns against assuming synchronization delays, and prescribes a concrete workflow for unpaid orders (get_payment_methods → initiate_payment → get_payment_status). It also tells the agent not to mark a task successful until status is 'processing' or 'completed'.

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