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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds real context beyond them: a cap of 100 line items and an explicit statement that it does not allocate, receive, or ship stock. That negative scope matters because it rules out side effects an agent might expect from an order endpoint.

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 sentences, both front-loaded: the capability first, then the exclusion. No filler, no restating of the title or annotations.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the key input, the rough return content, the line-item cap, and the absence of stock side effects. The word 'selected' leaves ambiguous which fields come back, though that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 already documents record_id as the orderNo from a search result, so the schema does most of the work. The description still adds value by noting decimal suffixes are supported, which explains the intent behind the schema's regex pattern rather than repeating it.

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 (read an order) plus scope: status, amounts, and up to 100 line items, keyed by order number. The single-record, by-orderNo framing clearly separates it from the sibling search_orders without needing to name it.

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 phrase 'by its Infoplus order number' implies the caller must already have an orderNo from a prior search, and the schema confirms that source. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative such as infoplus_search_orders for callers who lack an orderNo.

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