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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the description is free to add payload-level context — and it does, disclosing that customer/supplier roles, adjustments, notes, and invoice/shipment URLs are all returned. It stops short of noting error behavior (e.g. what happens for an unknown orderId) 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?

Front-loaded with the outcome ('One order in full') followed by a compact inventory of returned fields. The trailing raw endpoint path is largely redundant with the tool name and consumes space without adding decision value, a minor structural inefficiency.

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, enumerating the return payload is exactly the right compensation and it is thorough. What remains missing is failure behavior for invalid or inaccessible orderIds, which is a modest but real gap for a fetch tool.

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 single order_id parameter is already documented, including the pointer to finale_list_orders as the source of the id. The description only echoes this implicitly via the GET path template, so it does not add meaning 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 order in full) and enumerates exactly what 'full' contains: header, line items with field names, roles, adjustments, shipment/invoice URLs, notes. The phrase 'One order in full' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling finale_list_orders, which returns many orders without full detail.

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 contrast between 'one order in full' and the list sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. you need an orderId from finale_list_orders), and no exclusions. An agent can infer the context but is not guided to it.

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