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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the record includes lines, totals, status, signature and invoice, and 'One change order' implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permission requirements, or not-found handling.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the returned components are front-loaded. The fragment style without a verb is slightly less scannable but still efficient.

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 single-record read with an output schema, the description is adequate on the return side. It is incomplete regarding the only parameter and lacks explicit confirmation of read-only behavior, but the tool's simplicity limits the severity of those gaps.

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 0% for the sole required parameter, change_order_id. The description never mentions the parameter, its UUID format, or what identifier is expected, so it 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?

The description identifies a single change order and enumerates what it contains (lines, totals, status, signature, invoice), which distinguishes it from the bulk-oriented changes_list. However, it uses a noun phrase without an explicit retrieval verb, so the purpose is clear but slightly less crisp than it could be.

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 singular phrasing ('One change order') implicitly signals use when fetching a specific record by ID, but the description never mentions the sibling changes_list or states when not to use this tool. Guidance is only inferable, not explicit.

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