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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the response contents (addresses, products with ordered/shipped/returned/refunded quantities, shipments with tracking numbers) and the underlying GET endpoint.

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 plus the endpoint, with the core distinction and return contents front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: exact reference type, example, exclusion of ZF references, response contents, and endpoint. An agent can call it correctly without additional description.

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 already defines the reference as an external order reference. The description adds meaningful disambiguation by giving an example value and explicitly warning that this is not the ZF reference.

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: retrieving one order by its EXTERNAL reference. It immediately distinguishes the external shop/import reference from the ZF internal reference and names the sibling tool to use for the other case.

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 says this tool is for the external reference, gives an example format, and states that for the ZF reference the agent should instead use zenfulfillment_list_orders with query. That is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use routing instruction.

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