get_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents (status values and event timeline), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only behavior, auth requirements, or what happens for a nonexistent or unauthorized order.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical enumeration of statuses is dense but informative rather than redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly sketches the return shape (status + timeline), which is the minimum an agent needs. It nonetheless omits error/empty-case behavior and permission context for a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage.

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% and there is one required parameter. The description never explains order_no — its format, source, or whether it is the internal ID versus a human-facing number — so it fails to compensate for the schema 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?

The description names the resource (order) and the specific payload (status plus event timeline with enumerated lifecycle stages), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like list_orders or pay_order. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, but the retrieval intent is unambiguous.

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 call this versus list_orders, get_product, or other siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g. 'use after create_order'). Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the single-order parameter.

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