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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add context — and it does: the required read_orders scope and the underlying endpoint GET /api/3.0/orders/{id}.json. It does not describe error behavior or how sections are returned, but that is a modest gap given annotation coverage.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then auth, then the optional-section list; every clause carries information and there is no filler. The telegraphic fragment style is efficient but slightly clipped compared with full prose.

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 is the only place an agent could learn what a successful call returns, and it says nothing about the response shape beyond implying that extra sections are opt-in. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves a real gap.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by enumerating the full set of legal fields values (items, addresses, transactions, fulfillments, refunds, taxes, customer, shipping_fees, discounts, points, cancellation, note_attributes), which the schema only illustrates with three examples. This materially reduces trial-and-error on the fields parameter.

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 resource and scope (a single order fetched by id), which cleanly separates it from the sibling easystore_list_orders. The verb is implicit rather than stated ('One order by id'), but the meaning is unambiguous.

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?

Adds a real prerequisite ('Needs read_orders') and tells the agent how to request extra sections via fields. However, it never explicitly routes between this and easystore_list_orders, nor states when not to use it or what happens if the id does not exist.

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