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 profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: which fields come back (status, ship-to, routing) and that lines only appear with detail=OrderItems.

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 dense sentence plus the endpoint, front-loaded with the resource and the required id. No filler, and the most actionable fact (detail=OrderItems) is placed before the endpoint rather than buried.

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 carries the return-value burden and does sketch the return shape and detail-driven expansion. It is complete for a simple read call, though the itemdetail dimension of the response is never acknowledged.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-tool meaning by defining order_id as the transaction id produced by extensiv_list_orders and by calling out the OrderItems detail value that gates line data. The itemdetail parameter is not mentioned in the description, leaving a small gap.

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 ('One order by its transaction id') plus the underlying endpoint GET /orders/{transaction_id}. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool by pointing at extensiv_list_orders as the source of the id.

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?

Implicitly routes the agent through extensiv_list_orders to obtain the transaction id, which is clear usage context. It does not state exclusions or when a different sibling (e.g. list_orders) would be preferable, so it stops short of an explicit when/when-not.

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