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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what the response contains and that the include parameter expands into line items and visits. It stops short of describing failure behavior for bad ids or the shape of the returned payload.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero waste: return contents first, expansion hint second, endpoint last. Everything is front-loaded and each clause carries information.

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 description usefully compensates by listing the fields returned and the endpoint. That is enough for an agent to call it confidently; only minor gaps remain around response shape per included relation.

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 order_id UUID format plus the allowed include relations are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the most common include values but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One order by id') and enumerates the returned fields (customer, address, status, totals, payment and invoice links), plus the underlying endpoint GET /orders/{id}. The phrase 'One order by id' implicitly distinguishes it from aryeo_list_orders, so an agent can choose without opening either 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?

Gives clear operational guidance: fetch a single order by id, and add include=items,appointments,listing,customer when line items and visits are needed. It does not explicitly name aryeo_list_orders as the alternative for searching or state when-not to use this tool, which keeps it below a 5.

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