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 real value by enumerating what the single response contains (totals, addresses, payment/fulfillment status, discounts, line items, tracking) and pinning the underlying endpoint, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 dense, front-loaded sentence that packs the resource, the identifier caveat and the returned fields, followed by a short endpoint reference. Slightly over-packed but no sentence is wasted.

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 a single required parameter, read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how to identify the record. Only the routing to shoprocket_list_orders for obtaining an id is left implicit (it appears in the schema, not the description).

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by disambiguating the id format — explicitly warning against the dashboard #number, a distinction the schema description does not make.

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 id) and immediately scopes it against the sibling list tool by specifying the ord_... identifier rather than the dashboard number. An agent can tell this apart from shoprocket_list_orders without opening either schema.

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 id format caveat ('ord_..., not the #number shown in the dashboard'), which guards against a common mistake. However, it never explicitly names shoprocket_list_orders as the way to obtain an id or shoprocket_update_order_status as the mutation alternative; the when-to-use routing is left to inference.

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