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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two valuable facts beyond that: the lookup is confined to the authenticated account's own orders, and the tool is the recovery path after an ambiguous create response. It does not describe not-found behavior, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

One sentence, usage trigger front-loaded, no filler. Every clause carries information.

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 read-only fetch with an output schema and full annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers sequencing, auth scope, and both lookup keys. Only the not-found/ambiguity resolution semantics are left implicit.

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 the parameters and it only names them ('by order_id or transaction_id') without explaining that exactly one is required, the UUID format of transaction_id, or which key to prefer. It confirms the either/or lookup intent but adds no format or selection guidance beyond what the schema structure already encodes.

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 (VAS order) scoped to the authenticated account, and names the two lookup keys. It is trivially distinguishable from get_airtime_order, get_data_order and get_electricity_order, which are the obvious near-miss siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: use after create_vas_order, or after an ambiguous create result, naming the sibling to sequence with. It does not state when to prefer the other getters instead, but the resource specificity makes mis-selection unlikely.

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