order_detailRetrieve full order information by its unique ID, including items, client data, payment mode, and total amount.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | Unique numeric order ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. Description confirms read operation and specifies what data is returned (items, client data, etc.), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like permission requirements or rate limits. Adds value beyond annotations by detailing response content.
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?
Single, well-structured sentence. No redundant words, efficient delivery of purpose and content. Earns its place.
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?
No output schema, but description lists return fields (items, client data, payment mode, total amount) giving good context. Could mention if all or subset of fields are returned, but sufficient for a simple read tool with clear parameters.
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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter order_id described as 'Unique numeric order ID'. Description's 'by its unique ID' aligns with schema. No extra meaning beyond what schema provides, so baseline score of 3.
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?
Description clearly states 'Retrieve full order information by its unique ID' – a specific verb and resource. It lists components (items, client data, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings like order_create, order_edit, and data_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?
Implies usage when you have an order ID to get details, but no explicit guidance on when to choose this over data_list_orders or other retrieval methods. No 'do not use' conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct entity or action (account, client, order, product, payment, VAT, etc.), with clear naming like 'account_create' vs 'account_edit' and 'data_list_' prefixed listings. No overlapping purposes detected.
All tool names use snake_case and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., account_create, client_add, data_list_clients). Even compound names like auth_login_with_otp adhere to this structure.
41 tools is high but justified by the wide scope of a POS/accounting system (accounts, clients, orders, products, payments, VAT, reports). Slightly above the typical range but well-scoped.
The tool surface covers CRUD for all major entities (clients, departments, products, VAT, payment modes, orders), plus queries, reports, and authentication. No obvious gaps for a small business management server.