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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the ID can be a 'full pipe-suffixed id' and that the return includes status, Thai label, and tracking number. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects, nor does it specify the full response structure. The useful format hint helps, but overall behavioral details are limited.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences totaling 20 words. The first sentence states the purpose and parameter format, the second specifies return fields. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded. No wasted or redundant language.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings), the description covers the basic call and return fields but lacks details about the full response object (e.g., whether it returns the entire order or just the mentioned fields). It also does not mention error handling or missing IDs. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema provides only the parameter name 'order_id' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by stating that a 'full pipe-suffixed id is fine,' which clarifies the accepted format. This goes beyond the schema, but it does not specify other valid formats or constraints, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 clearly states the action ('Get one order by id') and the resource ('order'), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_orders' (multiple orders) and 'track_parcel' (tracking without order context) by focusing on a single order retrieval and mentioning return fields (status, Thai label, tracking number).

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?

The description implies that this tool is used when you need a single order by its ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_orders' for multiple orders, 'get_order_statuses' for statuses, or 'cancel_order' for cancellation. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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