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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: an authentication prerequisite (user type INET), a per-call vendor cost of 1 API credit, and the underlying GET endpoint, all of which affect agent 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?

Front-loads the resource and its contents, then the audience constraint, then the alternative and cost. Dense but every sentence carries signal; the endpoint string is mildly redundant with routing info already given.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the payload facets returned. With auth requirements, cost, alternative tool, and optional-param behavior all stated, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates the optional itemized charges flag and the endpoint template hints at path composition, but adds no format, default-behavior, or failure semantics beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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+resource (retrieve one on-demand order) and enumerates the returned facets: status, confirmation, pickup, delivery, proof-of-delivery. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling cxt_get_dispatch_order by naming the audience (INTERNET user vs Operations App).

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 an explicit routing rule: Operations App users should use cxt_get_dispatch_order instead, and the caller must be signed in with user type INET. It does not mention cxt_list_recent_orders or cxt_search_shipments as ways to discover an order id, which keeps it short of a full when/when-not map.

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