get_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses read-only behavior, which is the key side-effect signal, but does not mention error behavior, response shape, or any access prerequisites. This is adequate for a simple read tool but not richly transparent.

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?

Three short clauses in two sentences, with the core purpose first and no filler. Every phrase earns its place: what it returns, how to get the input, and its read-only nature.

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 one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential concerns: what is returned, where the ID comes from, and that it is safe. It could specify the return shape more concretely, but the tool is simple enough that 'full detail' is reasonably clear.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful provenance for the sole parameter ('order_id from list_orders'), telling the agent exactly how to obtain a valid value. The integer type is left to the schema, but the source guidance is the more important semantic.

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 full detail for one order, clearly distinct from list_orders which lists orders. No ambiguity with sibling tools because it names the exact entity and scope.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where to obtain order_id (from list_orders), establishing a clear workflow. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no competing order-detail sibling exists, so the guidance is sufficient.

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