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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the default Unshipped status filtering behavior and that label files are excluded, but is silent on auth requirements, pagination, error/no-match behavior, and the shape of the returned order object.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the lookup keys come first, then the param guidance and the limitation. The raw HTTP endpoint string contributes little for an MCP caller, which is the only genuinely dispensable clause.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must stand in for return-value information, and it only says labels are absent. Combined with the undocumented order_number parameter and unstated failure modes, it is adequate but has clear gaps for an agent that needs to know what it will actually get back.

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 partial (status and include are documented, order_id is not), and the description mostly repeats those schema descriptions. Its main added value is identifying order_id as the Starshipit id and order_number as a source-platform key, though order_number does not appear in the input schema at all, which creates ambiguity about whether that lookup is actually usable.

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 exact resource (one order) and both lookup keys (Starshipit order_id or source-platform order_number), plus the underlying endpoint. The singular scope implicitly separates it from the galaxy of list_*/search_orders siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives genuine caller guidance: use 'include' to pull extra sections, and pass status=Shipped/Printed when the order was already printed because the Starshipit default of Unshipped will hide it. It also flags a limitation ('Label files are not returned'). No explicit comparison to alternatives such as search_orders or list_unshipped_orders.

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