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 bar is lower, and the description still adds real value by disclosing what payload comes back — items, amounts, ship-to/bill-to, tracking codes, delivery dates, ticket id, note ids. With no output schema, that inventory is the only source of return-shape knowledge. It does not mention behavior for a non-existent or unauthorized id.

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?

One front-loaded sentence covering scope and returned content, plus a compact endpoint reference. No filler, and the most important information (one order, by id) leads.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece — the shape of the returned record. Only edge-case behavior (invalid/missing id, error response) is absent, which is a minor 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (type, range, meaning), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'by id' adds only a restatement of the key's role, not new format or provenance detail.

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 (fetch one sales order by id) and enumerates the payload's contents, which clearly sets it apart from the list-style siblings. It never names edesk_list_sales_orders as the alternative, but the word 'One' plus the by-id scoping leaves no ambiguity about what this returns.

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 only implied: the by-id framing tells an agent to use this when it already has a specific sales_order_id, but there is no explicit 'use X instead when...' routing against edesk_list_sales_orders, and no stated prerequisite about where the id comes from (though the schema notes it is the sales_order_id on a ticket).

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