wb_order_meta_get

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that available keys are not arbitrary but come from the order's requiredMeta, which is important for correct usage. Still, it does not describe the response shape, whether only allowed keys are returned, or any authentication/error 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the key-source clarification in a parenthetical. The phrase 'meta/marking' is slightly ambiguous, but overall the description avoids unnecessary words.

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-oriented tool, the description gives the key behavioral detail that valid meta keys come from requiredMeta. However, it lacks explicit return-format information, usage boundaries relative to sibling meta tools, and any guidance about requiredMeta lookup, so completeness is only moderate.

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 for the undocumented order_id parameter. The phrase 'the order's requiredMeta' implies order_id identifies the target order, but the description never explicitly documents the parameter, its purpose, format, or constraints.

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 identifies the resource as 'FBS order meta/marking' and the FBS qualifier distinguishes it from the DBS and CC order-meta siblings such as wb_dbs_order_meta_get and wb_cc_order_meta_get. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', leaving the read action to be inferred from the tool name.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of wb_dbs_order_meta_get, wb_cc_order_meta_get, wb_order_meta_set, or wb_order_meta_delete. The 'FBS' prefix is the only hint about the appropriate order type, and no exclusion or alternative-selection guidance is given.

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