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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that the response includes personal data (shipment and billing details), order item ids, fulfilment data, and latest delivery dates, which helps an agent anticipate the 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?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the essential operation ('One order by id') before listing returned fields and the API endpoint. It is efficient, though the field enumeration is long and could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned data, including sensitive buyer details and delivery dates. Combined with full parameter documentation and safety annotations, it gives an agent enough information to call the tool correctly, with only minor gaps around errors or authentication.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the order_id format and source. The description only reinforces 'by id' and does not add syntax, format, or sourcing details 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?

The description uses a specific retrieval verb for a single resource ('One order by id') and enumerates the exact data returned, including items, prices, quantities, fulfilment, buyer details, and delivery dates. This clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings such as bol_list_orders and from resource-specific siblings like bol_get_shipment.

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 phrase 'One order by id' implies when to use it, and the schema notes the id comes from bol_list_orders, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives. It is adequate but leaves routing between list and get tools largely to inference.

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