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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds value by disclosing exactly what data comes back (line items, allocations, shipments with tracking numbers) and the underlying endpoint. That return-content detail matters because no output schema exists, though error behavior for a missing id is not covered.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource and return fields front-loaded, followed by the endpoint path. Nothing is wasted, though 'GET /orders/{id}' is marginally redundant for an agent that only needs to call the tool.

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 with no output schema, the description is appropriately thorough about returned fields, which is exactly what an agent lacks otherwise. Only edge-case behavior (nonexistent id, permissions) is unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 the schema description already explains that order_id is the Veeqo id rather than the store's order number. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One order by id') and enumerates the returned content fields, so an agent immediately knows this is a single-record fetch. It does not explicitly name veeqo_list_orders as the alternative, relying on the schema's own note for that differentiation.

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 by 'one order by id' contrasted with a list tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance in the description itself. The routing hint ('not the store's order number — find it with veeqo_list_orders') lives in the 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.