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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only addition is the API-key auth requirement, which is useful but thin; it says nothing about not-found behavior or error modes for an invalid order_id.

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?

Two terse sentences with no filler and the returned data listed up front. The terseness borders on under-specification, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations covering return values, the description should describe what comes back and failure modes. It gestures at returned fields but omits structure, and gives no indication of behavior when the order_id does not exist.

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 only one parameter and schema coverage is 0%, but the schema itself encodes the format and UUID pattern. The description never mentions order_id, so it adds no semantics beyond the identifier's self-evident purpose, leaving the schema to carry the load.

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 names the resource (a single order) and the data it returns (status, price, payment, delivery details), which implicitly contrasts with the plural list_orders sibling. However, it omits an explicit verb like 'retrieve' and does not directly name or differentiate itself from any of the 20+ siblings that operate on orders such as get_gig or list_orders.

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?

No guidance on when to use get_order versus alternatives like list_orders or whoami; the only stated condition is 'Requires an API key,' which is a credential prerequisite rather than usage routing. An agent must infer that this is the single-order lookup by name alone.

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