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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific API endpoint and the payment_periods behavior, but does not describe error behavior, permissions, rate limits, or pagination.

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?

The description is two tight sentences plus the endpoint, with the retrieval scope and field list front-loaded and no redundant 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?

For a read-only two-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context: the resource, the lookup key, the returned data categories, and the payment schedule option. The main minor gap is that it does not mention not-found or error behavior.

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%, so baseline parameter semantics are already strong. The description adds useful meaning by explaining that adding payment_periods to fields includes the payment schedule, which goes beyond the generic fields description.

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?

The description clearly states it retrieves a single sales order by order code and enumerates the returned data: status, payment status, amounts, customer, line items, shipping info, and custom fields. It distinguishes itself from the list sibling by singular scope and required order code.

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 implication is that this tool should be used when an order code is known, but it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance. It does not mention using getfly_list_sale_orders to find an order code first or state exclusions.

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