TRON infrastructure for AI agents.

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

With zero annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully notes the authentication requirement but omits error handling (e.g., missing ID behavior), rate limits, and detailed return structure. It barely meets minimum viable disclosure for a read operation.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The core purpose ('Get order details...') is front-loaded, with prerequisites ('Auth required') following. Appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though the second sentence could specify return structure instead of just auth.

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 simple single-parameter input and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the basic contract by mentioning returned data types ('details', 'fill status'). However, with numerous order-related siblings present, the absence of selection guidance creates a completeness gap for agent decision-making.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage ('The order UUID'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema—only implying the 'order_id' parameter via 'by ID' without adding format constraints, requirements, or usage examples.

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 specific action ('Get'), resource ('order details'), and scope ('fill status by ID'), identifying the unique lookup capability. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'list_orders' or 'create_order', which could cause selection ambiguity.

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?

While 'Auth required' establishes a prerequisite, the description provides no guidance on when to use this specific tool versus siblings (e.g., 'list_orders' for searching, 'get_order' for specific ID retrieval). No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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