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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating what the response contains (listing details, quantity, total price, status, escrow address), which is meaningful given there is no output schema. It does not cover auth or rate-limit behavior, 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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating the verb, resource, and returned fields with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple read-by-id tool with annotations covering safety and only one fully documented parameter, the definition is nearly sufficient; listing the returned fields compensates for the absent output schema. Only the lack of explicit sibling routing keeps it from a 5.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'id' field including an example ('ord-demo-001'). The description implies identification by id but adds no syntax or format 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Get details of a specific supply order') and enumerates the fields returned (listing details, quantity, total price, status, escrow address). The word 'specific' plus the required id parameter distinguishes it from marketplace_list_orders, though it never names the 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 implied: 'a specific supply order' signals this is the lookup-by-id path versus the list variant. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the alternative marketplace_list_orders, and no prerequisites such as needing a valid order id.

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