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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add operational context, and it does: it discloses exactly which data domains come back plus the underlying endpoint GET /baskets/<ORDER#>.api. It does not mention error behavior for an invalid/unknown order number, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the payload contents. The trailing endpoint is slightly jargon-heavy but is short and informative rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by listing the main field groups. Combined with a fully documented single required parameter and readOnly annotations, only failure-mode behavior is unaddressed.

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% and the schema already documents order_number, its integer-or-numeric-string forms, and its source. The description adds nothing beyond repeating 'by its order number', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 order number') and enumerates the returned content (customer, status, dates, line items, sub-rents, totals, payments). The singular 'One order' implicitly contrasts with ezrentout_list_orders but does not name it, so the sibling differentiation is only suggestive rather than explicit.

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 implied by the schema note 'from ezrentout_list_orders' and by the singular scope, but the description itself gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of near-neighbors like ezrentout_get_order_history. An agent can infer the pattern, but nothing is stated.

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