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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond that: the call is scoped to the caller's authenticated account and is the intended remedy for a dangling/ambiguous create. It does not say what happens when none of the identifiers match an order (error vs empty), which keeps 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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the trigger condition before the lookup mechanics. Nothing repeats the annotations or the schema types.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and annotations cover the risk profile; what remains is the lookup contract, which the description mostly supplies. The only gap is failure behavior and identifier precedence when multiple keys could be passed.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it names all three identifiers and implies a one-of choice, but the anyOf constraint is really conveyed by the schema. It gives no guidance on what a client_reference is versus an order_reference_id, format expectations, or which to prefer when several are known.

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 ('fetch') and resource ('authenticated account electricity order') and enumerates the three lookup keys accepted. It is clearly distinguishable from the create_* siblings and from the other get_*_order tools, which target different product types.

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?

Explicitly anchors usage to a lifecycle: 'after create_electricity_order, or after an ambiguous create result.' That names the sibling that precedes it and the exact situation (uncertain create outcome) that selects this tool, which is the kind of routing guidance agents need.

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