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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the description's added value is the 60-day lookback limit and the shape of what is returned (statuses, proof of delivery, metadata). It does not mention failure modes such as an unknown or expired order id, which would be the remaining gap.

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?

Three dense sentences: payload contents first, then the retention constraint, then the endpoint. No filler, and the most decision-relevant constraint is not buried.

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?

With no output schema, listing the returned fields and the 60-day cap gives an agent enough to call and interpret the result. Only error/not-found behavior is left unstated.

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 the single order_id parameter is fully documented with a pattern and example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the id format beyond what the schema already says, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

"One delivery order" plus the endpoint GET /v3/orders/{orderId} states the resource and operation unambiguously. The enumerated payload (status values, price breakdown, driver id, stops) makes it clearly distinct from siblings like lalamove_track_order or lalamove_get_driver.

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 60-day retention constraint is real usage guidance the agent cannot infer elsewhere. However, there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over lalamove_track_order or lalamove_list_cities, nor what to do when an order falls outside the window.

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