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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the returned payload includes totals and line items, and amounts are denominated in cents – a convention an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations. It stops short of noting error/not-found behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carries the verb, resource, key input, and return contents, with the trailing 'GraphQL: order' note kept to a minimum. No sentence 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 simple single-record read with annotations covering safety, the definition covers input, return contents, and amount units. With no output schema present, slightly more detail on the returned fields or missing-order behavior would make it fully self-sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already documents order_id including the urn:blvd:Order:<uuid> format. The description's 'by id' adds essentially nothing beyond the schema, 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 (fetch) and resource (one order by id) and immediately scopes it to a single record, which cleanly separates it from the sibling boulevard_list_orders. The parenthetical enumeration of what an order contains (services, products, gratuity, gift cards) further pins down the resource.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by id' – call it when you already hold an order identifier – but the description never states when to prefer this over boulevard_list_orders or what to do without an id. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are named.

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