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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds value by enumerating what comes back (status, title, costs, dates, linked maintenance task), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about missing-record behavior, auth, or data freshness.

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?

One compact sentence plus an endpoint reference, with no filler. It leads with the returned fields rather than the action, which is slightly less front-loaded than ideal for a retrieval tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives an adequate picture of the returned object. Remaining gaps (error behavior, field formats for costs/dates) are minor for a straightforward getter.

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 single 'id' parameter is already documented as an Arthur numeric record id sourced from the corresponding list tool. The description adds no additional meaning about the id beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names the resource (contractor work orders) and, via 'GET /v2/workorders/{id}', makes clear this fetches a single record by id, which distinguishes it from the sibling arthur_list_workorders. The verb is only implied by the HTTP path rather than stated directly, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 {id} path parameter implicitly signals 'use this when you already have an id, otherwise use arthur_list_workorders', but no explicit when-to-use or prerequisite guidance is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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