get_order

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces read-only. It goes beyond annotations by specifying which fields are expanded (lineItems and payments) and that customer card data is never expanded, plus the 404 error behavior if the order ID is missing. These are valuable behavioral details not captured in structured metadata.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, expansion behavior, and error handling. No fluff or redundancy beyond the read-only statement that echoes the annotation.

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 simple (1 parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the key aspects: what is returned, what is excluded, and error behavior. Combined with annotations, this is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 lists order_id as a required string but has 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'order_id' in the 404 sentence, implying it is the unique identifier, but it does not provide a dedicated parameter explanation. Since the parameter name is self-explanatory and the description references it, it provides mild compensation but not exhaustive clarity.

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 fetches a single order by ID, with specific detail on expanded fields (line items and payment summary). This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like list_orders and list_open_orders, which list multiple orders.

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 conveys clear context: use this for fetching a single order's details. It explicitly notes that customer card data is never expanded, providing a limitation that guides when not to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools for retrieving card data or modifying orders, so it stops short of explicit exclusions.

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