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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description is not obligated to restate it. It adds genuine behavioral context beyond the schema: the one-of-three identifier constraint and the HTTP 410 response for a removed order, which also discloses who removed it. It stops short of describing pagination or auth requirements, which is acceptable for a single-record read.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and followed by the invocation rule and the error case. The field enumeration is long but earns its place by substituting for the absent output schema.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the returned fields, plus it documents the identifier constraint and the 410 removed-order case. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% and each parameter is well documented, so baseline would be 3. The description adds real value the schema cannot express: the mutual exclusivity of number/order_id/track_id (no oneOf/anyOf is present in the schema) and the underlying endpoint mapping (Order/Number|Id|TrackId).

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+resource ('Get one order') and immediately distinguishes it from the list/find siblings by enumerating the full single-order payload (client, address, goods lines, route, driver, status, ETA, signature links). An agent can tell this is the full-detail single-record fetch rather than a search.

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 description gives a concrete invocation rule ('pass exactly one of number, order_id or track_id') but never says when to choose this tool over trackpod_find_orders_by_number or trackpod_list_orders, nor what to do if the identifier is unknown. Usage is implied by the identifier vocabulary rather than stated.

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