rr_get_purchase_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions returning line items and vendor info but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The read nature is implied but not explicit, leaving gaps for a mutation-unaware agent.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and expected returns. Some details (e.g., whether all fields are returned, error handling) are absent, but not critical for a simple get operation.

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 one parameter (po_id) already described as 'Purchase order UUID'. The description repeats this without adding new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Hence baseline score applies.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'purchase order', specifying scope as 'single' and content as 'full details including line items and vendor info'. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like rr_list_purchase_orders and rr_list_suppliers.

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 for retrieving a single purchase order but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., rr_list_purchase_orders for multiple, or other get tools for different resources). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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