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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by naming the returned fields and their units ('parts/labor/tax in cents'), which matters because no output schema exists. It does not cover error behavior (missing/invalid id) or permissions, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence covering identity, lookup key, and return contents, followed by the underlying endpoint for traceability. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 correctly compensates by summarizing the response payload and its units, which is the main thing an agent needs for a single-resource read. Missing only edge-case behavior (not-found handling) and explicit sibling routing, so it falls just short of complete.

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?

There is a single required orderId with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the parameter contract. The description adds no format, prefix, or sourcing detail beyond 'by id', which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Fetch a single work order by id') and immediately enumerates the returned surface (customer, vehicle, complaint, totals, payment state, profitability). The word 'single' plus 'by id' clearly separates it from shopmonkey_list_orders and differentiates the read from shopmonkey_update_order.

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 only implied: 'by id' signals an order id must already be known, so an agent can infer it should follow a list/search call. However, the description never states when to prefer this over shopmonkey_list_orders or shopmonkey_list_customer_orders, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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