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 real value by disclosing return breadth ('all fields and line items'), telling the agent no follow-up call is needed for line items. It says nothing about error behavior (e.g., unknown id) or rate limits, so it is useful but not rich.

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 with zero filler, and the substantive scope statement ('with all fields and line items') is front-loaded ahead of the endpoint path. Every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient – it states what comes back, which is the main gap when no output schema exists. Minor omissions are failure behavior on a bad id and whether the response is a single object envelope; neither is critical here.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already carries the important disambiguation ('not the order number') and points to sosinventory_list_sales_orders as the id source. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

The description pairs a specific verb and resource ('Get' is implied by 'One sales order by id') with a precise scope: a single order retrieved by identifier, plus the endpoint path. 'One ... by id' inherently distinguishes it from sosinventory_list_sales_orders, so an agent can route between single-fetch and list 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 rather than stated: 'by id' signals this is the lookup path once an id is known, but the description names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance. Prerequisite knowledge (that the id comes from sosinventory_list_sales_orders) lives only in the input schema, not the description.

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