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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the returned payload shape (jobs with steps, summary text, status, assignee) and the underlying endpoint GET /v6/workorders/{id}. It omits error behavior for an unknown id, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences plus the endpoint reference, with the core identity of the tool front-loaded and no filler. Every clause contributes either scope, a routing hint, or payload 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the fields returned. For a single-parameter read it is nearly complete, with only missing behavior on invalid/not-found ids.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already warns this is the numeric id, not the TWL code. The description only restates "by id," adding no format or validation 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 work order by id") and enumerates what comes back: jobs, steps, summary text, status, assignee. This clearly separates it from the list_work_orders siblings, which return collections rather than a single fully-expanded order.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to vintrace_list_work_orders or vintrace_list_work_orders_v6 to obtain the required id, which is the only precondition for calling this tool. An agent knows exactly when to use this versus the listing siblings.

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