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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the required OAuth-style scope and the concrete REST endpoint. It still says nothing about error behavior for missing ids.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the resource identity is front-loaded and the scope and endpoint follow in order of decreasing importance.

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 read-only single-resource getter with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers what is needed to call it: identity, auth scope, and endpoint. The only gap is the absence of any hint about the returned representation, which no output schema offsets.

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%, and both parameters (id, with) are already documented in the schema, including the comma-separated include syntax. The description adds no syntax, constraints or examples of its own, so 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 the specific resource (one order confirmation) and the selection key (by id), which is enough to tell it apart from list_order_confirmations. It reads as a fragment rather than a verb phrase, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 prerequisite ('Needs the "order_confirmation" scope') gives a real usage condition, and the singular/by-id framing implies the list tool is the alternative for bulk retrieval. There is no explicit when-not or named sibling, so the guidance is only implied.

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