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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the return shape (fields returned), which is useful, but says nothing about rate limits, auth scope, or error behavior for missing orders.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, followed by a short endpoint reference. No 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (type, statuses, items/files, shipment/tracking, address, receipts/totals), which an agent needs to plan parsing. Missing only edge-case behavior (not-found, draft vs order semantics) for a 5.

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 schema documents the order_id pattern, length bounds, and source (gelato_search_orders). The description adds the conceptual 'type (order/draft)' note but that describes the response, not the parameter. Baseline 4 for a 1-param tool with fully documented schema.

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 Gelato order id') and enumerates the exact fields returned (type, statuses, items, shipments, address, receipts, totals). The API path GET /v4/orders/{orderId} removes any ambiguity about scope versus siblings like gelato_search_orders.

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?

The schema description of order_id says '(from gelato_search_orders)', which implicitly routes the agent to search first. It doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over search_orders, but single-id retrieval vs. search is clear enough from the text.

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