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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is telling the agent what the response body contains — status, call-center and courier notes, expected delivery_date, tracking values. That is genuinely useful since no output schema exists. It does not say what happens for a missing order id, which keeps it below 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 sentence that front-loads the action and packs the return contents without 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back. The remaining gap is that the sole input parameter is never characterized and error behavior is unstated.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions order_id, its required status, or its integer identity format — 'one order' only vaguely implies lookup by identifier. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Get one order') and enumerates the returned content (status, operator/courier notes, delivery_date, tracking). The phrase 'one order' implicitly distinguishes it from list_orders, but no sibling is named 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 only implied by the singular 'one order' versus the sibling list_orders and get_order_sale_chance; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over those alternatives or any prerequisite.

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