get_order_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, yet the description adds real operational semantics: needs_attention means the order will not complete on its own and the agent must surface title/message; cost/profit only exist once the provider has priced the order; checkout_split must not be summed across sibling orders. That last point is a genuine misuse guard. It stops short of covering error behavior or what happens for a nonexistent order_uuid.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload contents, then prioritized downstream rules (needs_attention, cost/profit, checkout_split). Dense but every sentence carries actionable instruction. Minor deductions: the trailing "Read-only." merely repeats the annotation and a stray artifact marker "[#c15baa]" adds noise.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly, including conditional fields and a reporting rule for split checkouts. The remaining gap is the undocumented `workspace` parameter and no mention of failure modes for a bad order_uuid.

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?

Only 50% schema description coverage: order_uuid is documented in the schema (sourced from list_my_orders) but `workspace` is undocumented in both places. The description says nothing about either parameter's semantics — no hints on workspace resolution or required format — so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Full detail for one order") and immediately enumerates the returned facets — line items, payment/fulfillment status, shipments/tracking, ship_by_at — which distinguishes it clearly from list_my_orders and check_order_status. An agent knows exactly what it gets without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: it's the 'full detail for one order' tool, and the schema ties order_uuid to list_my_orders. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over check_order_status or get_orders_summary, and no preconditions or exclusions. Strong guidance is given for how to interpret the output, but not for tool selection.

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