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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the payload contents (line items, addresses, discounts, payment, shipping) and the underlying endpoint, which no structured field conveys.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the payload contents, followed by the endpoint. Nothing redundant, nothing missing that belongs there.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the call returns and how it maps to the API. Only the error behavior for a nonexistent id is absent, which is a minor gap.

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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage: 'Sapo order id.', integer, >0). The description only restates 'by id', adding no format, boundary or error semantics beyond the schema.

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+resource ('One order by id') and enumerates the returned sub-resources, so the agent knows exactly what it fetches. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sapo_list_orders by fetching a single order, but never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Retrieval-by-id usage is implied by 'by id', and the contrast with listing tools is inferable from siblings, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over sapo_list_orders or sapo_update_order.

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