Get order

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds only 'Weight: 1', which is a rate-limit cost indicator not present in annotations. It does not describe what happens if the order ID is not found or authentication requirements. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely short, but the first line repeats the title 'Get order' verbatim, which is redundant. The second sentence is front-loaded with the core action. However, the weight information is appended without context. It is concise but wastes a line on the title.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and includes the weight. However, it omits distinctions from sibling tools and any behavioral nuances (e.g., error handling for invalid IDs). It is complete enough to invoke but not to select confidently among alternatives.

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 coverage is 100%, with the single required parameter 'orderId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntactic or semantic detail about the order ID format beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Get order details by order ID.' This clearly identifies the tool's function. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'pionex_orders_get_order_by_client_order_id', which retrieves order details by client order ID rather than exchange order ID. The distinction is important for an agent choosing between the two.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_order_by_client_order_id, get_open_orders, or get_all_orders. The description implies it's for looking up a single order, but does not specify prerequisites such as requiring a known order ID or how to obtain one.

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