get_sales_order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context: the response includes line items and masked customer contact. Beyond that, it doesn't disclose auth requirements, error behavior for failed lookups, or rate limits, so it adds moderate value on top of solid annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the input constraint. No filler.

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-value explanation isn't required, and annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with a summary of returned fields and the one-identifier constraint, this is nearly complete; the only gap is an explicit sibling routing statement.

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 the schema fully documents the three identifier parameters. The description's 'Give exactly one identifier' reinforces exclusivity but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (sales order) and enumerates the returned content (line items, shipped quantities, packages, masked customer contact), clearly distinguishing this single-record fetch from sibling list_sales_orders and search_sales_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?

The instruction 'Give exactly one identifier' implies usage as a single-record lookup, and the contrast with list/search siblings is discernible from the name. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the human-readable alternative, but the constraint is clear.

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