Get order by friendly id

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description is not required to restate them. It usefully adds a concrete rate limit (100 req / 10s per shop) with a docs link, which is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot carry. It still omits error behavior (e.g. not-found handling), keeping it below the top mark.

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 short sentences with no filler and the rate-limit constraint placed first, so the operational limit is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the body sentence adds almost nothing beyond the title.

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 lookup with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is largely adequate. But it neither routes the agent away from the near-identical get_order nor indicates what a call returns or whether a missing friendly_id produces an error, leaving small but real gaps for a simple tool.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the account label semantics and friendly_id pattern/length. The description only echoes the lookup key and adds no syntax, format, or validity guidance beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Returns order') plus the lookup key ('by friendly id'), which is enough to distinguish it from the list_orders sibling. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with get_order, the closest sibling that presumably looks up by a different identifier, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_order, list_orders, or any other order-retrieval sibling. The only usage-adjacent content is the rate limit, which constrains calling frequency but does not tell an agent which tool to pick.

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