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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the composition of the returned payload, which is already conveyed by the output schema; it says nothing about permissions, error behavior when neither identifier matches, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentence listing the payload contents, with no filler or repetition. Every clause names a distinct part of the result.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained (and the description's list is partly redundant with it). The real gap is that both parameters are optional, yet the description gives no indication that at least one identifier is needed to resolve a single order.

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%, so both id_order and reference are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no meaning beyond that, notably no guidance on which identifier to prefer or what happens if both are given.

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 (get) and resource (order) plus a scoped enumeration of what the detail contains: lines, billing/shipping addresses, status history, payment, invoice. It is clearly a single-order detail fetch, but it never names the siblings it is not (search_orders, list_unpaid_orders), so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of the alternatives in the sibling list (search_orders, list_unpaid_orders). It also never says that either id_order or reference must be supplied, which matters because zero parameters are required.

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