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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared in annotations, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds real value by enumerating what comes back (lines, addresses, shipping_info, financials, dropship), but says nothing about failure behavior when the order number is unknown, rate limits, or pagination.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: the operation and its scope come first, followed by the returned field groups and the underlying endpoint. Every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration does much of the work an output schema would, and it covers all the meaningful sections. It stops short of describing the response's nested structure or what happens on a missing order, which would fully close the gap for a single-resource get.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself documents the exact format ("1-1001" prefix) and where to obtain the value. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Get one order by order number") and then enumerates the returned fields, which clearly separates it from ordoro_list_orders and the other order siblings. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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 description implies usage by noting that the order_number comes from ordoro_list_orders, suggesting a list-then-get workflow. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of the alternatives (e.g., ordoro_get_order_counts or ordoro_list_orders) and no prerequisites.

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