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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open world), so the description only needs to add context. It adds the payload contents, but says nothing about error behavior for unknown ids, permissions, or how the 'includes' expansion changes the shape of results — a notable gap for a tool whose whole point is fetching a rich record.

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 with zero waste; the returned contents are front-loaded and the endpoint path is a compact trailing reference. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 does the work of telling the agent what comes back, which is the key missing piece. It stops short of explaining how the optional includes parameter modifies the response, but the schema covers that field, so the definition is close to sufficient.

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 both parameters (work_order_id and includes) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, example, or guidance about the optional includes expansion, leaving the schema to do all the work — the 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('One work order by id') and enumerates the sub-resources returned (checklist items, custom fields, time log, parts, files). The 'by id' phrasing implicitly separates it from upkeep_list_work_orders, though it never names that sibling 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?

Usage is only implied: 'by id' suggests you need a known identifier, which contrasts with the list tool. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over upkeep_list_work_orders or when to follow up with upkeep_update_work_order.

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