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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the tool returns the full order state and, importantly, that personal data is only returned to the access_token holder. This goes beyond the annotation-provided safety profile without contradicting it.

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?

The description is two short, information-dense sentences. The first front-loads what the tool returns, and the second adds a critical access-handling caveat. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent should expect in the response: fields, documents, price, status, and deficiencies. Combined with the access_token safety note and the read-only annotation, this is largely complete for a simple read operation, though it could mention response format or explicitly distinguish itself from the status-only sibling.

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 the schema already documents both order_id and access_token well. The description adds one relevant semantic point about personal data being restricted to the token holder, but it does not expand much on parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 clearly states that the tool returns the full state of an order, enumerating the included content: field values, documents, price, status, and deficiencies. This makes it distinct from narrow siblings like get_certificate_order_status, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and does not name the sibling it differs from.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_certificate_order_status or get_certificate_order_requirements. The context signal of 'full state' implies a use case, but the description itself does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.

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