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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the underlying endpoint GET /orders/{id} and enumerates the response sections, but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown id or any auth/rate-limit constraints.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the payload description comes first and the endpoint reference is a compact addendum. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description covers what is returned and how it maps to the API. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation against kiotviet_get_order_by_code, which matters given the crowded lookalike toolset.

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% for the single order_id parameter ('KiotViet order id.', integer > 0), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no format, sourcing, or lookup hint beyond that.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('One sales order by id') plus the returned payload (lines, payments, delivery), which tells an agent exactly what it gets. It does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling kiotviet_get_order_by_code, so the by-id vs by-code choice is left implicit.

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 only implied by the phrase 'by id'; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over kiotviet_get_order_by_code or kiotviet_list_orders. An agent can infer the case of a known numeric id but must reason about it rather than being told.

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