order_products

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the output fields and input formats but does not explicitly indicate that this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, error handling, or potential limitations. The absence of any mention of side effects or edge cases leaves an agent without full understanding of its behavior.

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 two sentences: the first lists output fields, the second explains input formats. It is front-loaded with the purpose and extremely efficient, containing no redundant words. Every clause earns its place, making it an excellent example of concise, structured writing.

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 has a single simple parameter, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the core purpose and input requirements well. It does not discuss error cases or prerequisites like authentication, but the presence of an output schema alleviates the need to detail return values. Overall, it is nearly complete for a simple read operation.

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% and the schema already explains the parameter format including the detail_link acceptance. The description adds a concrete example and reinforces the dual format, but it does not provide substantive new meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool returns items of one order with a specific list of fields (sku, title, price, variant, seller, link). It distinguishes itself from list_orders (which lists orders, not items) and other product-related tools by focusing on a single order's contents. The verb 'Items of one order' is specific, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to avoid confusion, which keeps it slightly below a 5.

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 specifies accepted input formats (order number or detail_link from list_orders) and implies it should be used when needing the items of a particular order. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools for other scenarios. The guidance is clear enough for basic use but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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