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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value beyond that by naming the returned fields and stating that totals are in cents and that payment state is included. That return-shape disclosure is meaningful given there is no output schema. It stops short of noting what happens for an unknown id.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before the payload list, plus a compact endpoint reference. No filler, no redundancy, and the most important information arrives first.

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 one required parameter, a readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials and partially compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating returned fields. Missing only error behavior for a non-existent order 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% for the single orderId parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds only 'by id', which merely restates the parameter rather than supplying format, prefix, or example values. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 payload (customer, vehicle, complaint, totals, payment state, profitability). The word 'single' cleanly separates it from the sibling list tools such as shopmonkey_list_orders and shopmonkey_list_customer_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 'by id' and 'single', which signals retrieval-by-identifier rather than listing or updating, but the description never explicitly states when to prefer this over shopmonkey_list_orders or shopmonkey_list_customer_orders, nor any prerequisites. Adequate but leaves the routing inference to the agent.

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