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. The description adds the REST endpoint, signalling a thin read-only passthrough, but says nothing about not-found behavior, error surfaces, or what fields come back.

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, and the identifying detail is front-loaded. The opening is a fragment ('One sales order by order code') that omits an explicit verb, which costs a point but the meaning is never ambiguous.

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 annotations covering safety, this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should at least hint at what a returned sales order contains or what happens for an unknown code. As written it is minimal but callable.

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?

With a single required parameter and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description goes one step further by showing the concrete code format (DH000123), which the schema's 'KiotViet order code' text does not supply. That example is genuinely useful for formatting a valid call.

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?

Names the resource (a single sales order) and the lookup key (order code), and reinforces it with a concrete example (DH000123) plus the underlying endpoint GET /orders/code/{code}. This makes it distinguishable from list_orders in practice, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling kiotviet_get_order, so the code-vs-ID split is left to inference.

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: an agent must infer that this is the tool to use when it holds a human-readable order code rather than an internal ID. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or statement naming kiotviet_get_order as the alternative.

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