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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds real context: the exact response contents, the opt-in embedding semantics of the two flags, and the underlying endpoint GET /search/orders/{id}. It does not cover error behavior for an unknown id, but the expansion semantics are the more valuable disclosure.

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 tight sentences: what you get first, optional expansions second, endpoint last. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing 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 3-parameter read-only fetch with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers resource, payload shape and expansion behavior adequately. The only minor omission is what happens when the id does not exist, which is secondary for this tool class.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that include_transactions pulls payments including charges and refunds, which the schema does not state, and frames both flags as 'embed' expansions of the parent order.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('one order by id') and enumerates what the response contains: billing details, event, totals and status. It is clearly distinguishable from get_customer, get_ticket and get_transaction by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts with list_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 only implied: fetch a single order when you already have an id (the schema notes ids come from ticketspice_list_orders). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over ticketspice_list_orders or the per-entity getters, and no exclusions.

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