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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and reach profile is covered. The description only adds the REST endpoint path and a restatement of embeddable relationships, not behavioral traits like auth requirements, rate limits, or 404 behavior when the id is unknown.

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 telegraphic sentence that front-loads the core purpose and tacks on the optional parameter and endpoint. No wasted words, though the trailing REST path is low-value for an agent.

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 read-by-id tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits what a missing or unauthorized order returns and does not state pagination-free single-resource semantics explicitly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both order_id and with are fully documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The description enumerates specific relationship names (customer, products, coupons, addresses, fulfillments, transactions), which adds mild value over the schema's generic pattern but also diverges from the schema's own example.

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 with scope ('One order by id'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling cratejoy_list_orders. It does not explicitly name the list alternative, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 'optionally with relationships' hints at when the embed parameter matters, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus cratejoy_list_orders or when to use 'with=all' versus a specific subset. Usage 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.