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 real context beyond that: the id must be Order Desk's internal id and not the cart's order number, and it lists what the response contains. No pagination or rate-limit notes, but a single-resource GET needs little of that.

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 tight segments: what you get, the disambiguating alternative, and the underlying endpoint. Front-loaded with the payload so an agent knows the value immediately; no 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?

There is no output schema, so the enumeration of return fields carries that burden and does it well, and the id-type caveat closes the main misuse risk. For a one-parameter read with annotations covering safety, nothing material is missing.

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 order_id property already documents 'not the cart's order number', so the description largely restates the schema. It adds no extra syntax, format, or bounds beyond what the property definition provides, making 3 the correct baseline.

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+resource (get one order) with the scope explicitly bounded to 'Order Desk's internal id', and the payload is enumerated (addresses, items, totals, payment, notes, discounts, checkout data, shipments). This clearly separates it from orderdesk_list_orders and the other order-mutating siblings.

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?

It names the alternative (orderdesk_list_orders) and the exact condition that selects it: when the agent only has 'your own id', pass source_id. That is clear routing, though it doesn't cover any other selection context (e.g. needing shipments or items in bulk).

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