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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is mostly covered; the description reinforces it with 'read-only, runs straight away' (no approval step). It goes beyond annotations by enumerating the returned fields and flagging the edge case that payment_method_title may be empty when the gateway isn't registered.

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 purpose leads, followed by the field list — which earns its length because no output schema exists. Minor waste in the repeated site parenthetical that duplicates the site_id enum description.

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 enumerated return fields plus the payment_method vs payment_method_title distinction are exactly what an agent needs to use the result. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers both parameters, leaving no substantive gap.

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 both parameters (order id, site_id enum) are fully described in the schema, so the baseline applies. The description adds no meaning about the id parameter — no format, range, or behavior on invalid IDs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get single WooCommerce order by ID'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling wc_get_orders (list) and wc_update_order (mutation). An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

'by ID' implies this is the single-record lookup versus the list tool, but the description never names wc_get_orders as the alternative or states when to use which. No prerequisite or not-found guidance either, so the routing is left to inference.

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