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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and destructive=false, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it warns the payload contains customer personal data and that secrets, the order link, and payment details are stripped. This redaction/PII disclosure is genuinely useful and not derivable from annotations.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the code example comes first, then the returned fields, then the PII/redaction caveats, then the endpoint. No filler; slight density is offset by the clear ordering.

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 description responsibly enumerates the return fields and the safety caveats (PII present, secrets removed). Complete for a read-by-id tool; a minor gap is not clarifying the include_canceled_positions behavior.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and in fact omits mention of the include_canceled_positions toggle, 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 (get) and resource (one order by code) and enumerates exactly what is returned: status, customer contact, totals, positions, fees, payments, refunds, invoice address, check-in flags. The singular 'One order by its code' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling pretix_list_orders.

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 implied by the singular fetch-by-code framing, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over pretix_list_orders or pretix_list_order_positions, nor that you need a code (which you'd obtain elsewhere). The required code parameter nudges inference but no alternative is named.

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