printful_get_order

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, non-destructive, and repeatable operations. The description adds value by specifying the return data (order status, recipient, costs, items, shipment info) and the format option, which are not covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and usage instructions in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is complete. It provides purpose, return data overview, and parameter usage, addressing all necessary contextual elements without overloading.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining 'order_id' semantics ('Order ID or external ID (prefix with @ for external ID)') and mentioning the 'format' parameter indirectly. However, it does not fully detail all parameter behaviors or constraints beyond what the schema's properties and enums provide. With one parameter and some added context, it meets the baseline.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific order.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('order'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'printful_list_orders' or 'printful_get_product', which reduces clarity. The title annotation 'Get Order Details' reinforces this, but the description alone lacks sibling distinction.

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 implies usage by specifying 'Use order ID or external ID (prefix with @).' However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'printful_list_orders' for listing multiple orders or 'printful_get_product' for product details. The context is clear but lacks comparative alternatives.

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