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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds nothing beyond that — no note on behavior when the ID is unknown, whether tasks/comments are included, or rate/permission context. For a trivial read the burden is low, but no extra context is contributed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient but extremely sparse, leaving no room for the scope or alternative hints that would earn a 5.

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 getter with readOnly annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. Missing is any indication of what the work order payload contains or what happens on an invalid/missing ID.

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%: the 'id' parameter is documented with format and the string-for-64-bit-precision rationale. The description only repeats 'by ID', adding no syntax or format detail — 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 ('work order') with the singular scope 'one ... by ID', which implicitly distinguishes it from propertyware_list_work_orders. It does not name the sibling, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 single-record scope implies this is for fetching one known work order rather than browsing, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of propertyware_list_work_orders as the alternative, and no prerequisites.

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