GetOrdersId

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving an order and options for expanding relations or selecting fields, but lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., if the ID is invalid), rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a read operation.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence covers the core purpose, and the second adds useful detail without redundancy, making it 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 complexity of a retrieval tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, error cases, authentication needs, and response structure, which are crucial for effective tool invocation in this context.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies 'id' is for the order ID and 'fields' is for selecting return fields, but doesn't explain the format of 'fields' (e.g., comma-separated list) or if 'id' is required. This adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'retrieve' and resource 'order by its ID', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetOrders' (which likely lists orders) or 'GetCartsId' (which retrieves carts), so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention using 'GetOrders' for listing orders or 'GetCartsId' for carts, and there's no context on prerequisites like authentication or order existence. The description only states what the tool does, not when to apply it.

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