get_mouser_order

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It states that lookup is by either sales-order or web-order number, but does not describe validation behavior when both/neither are supplied or what 'one order' means in the response.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action, resource, and lookup key, making it easy to scan.

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?

The tool is a simple read with good annotations, and the description is enough to select it, but with no output schema and no mention of the required request wrapper or one-of constraint, the agent has incomplete information for fully correct invocation and expected return.

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?

The input schema parameters have no descriptions, so the prose carries the burden. The description names both identifiers and indicates they are alternatives, which adds meaning, but it stops short of stating that exactly one is expected, leaving a critical ambiguity given both fields default to null.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as a single Mouser order, keyed by sales-order or web-order number. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling search/list tools and from get_sales_order by naming the Mouser context and the one-record semantics.

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 phrase 'Read one ... by ... number' implies use when a specific Mouser order identifier is already known, but the description does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over search_orders, search_mouser_order_history, or get_sales_order. No exclusions or fallback guidance are provided.

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