sfc_search_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Look up' implies a read, but the description does not say what happens when the orderCode is not found, whether errors are returned, whether rate limits apply, or what the response contains — significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words, and the key discriminator (orderCode) is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, but nothing in it is filler.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool this is minimally viable: the input is fully documented by the schema. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose at least the return shape or not-found behavior, and it does neither.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('SFC order code', minLength 1), so the schema already does the work. The description's 'by SFC orderCode (searchOrder)' restates the field without adding format, sourcing, or validation details beyond the 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 states a specific verb (look up) and resource (an order) and identifies the key lookup field (SFC orderCode). It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as sfc_preview_order or sfc_get_track, so an agent must infer that this is the canonical single-order retrieval.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'Look up an order by SFC orderCode' — call it when you have an orderCode. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over sfc_preview_order or sfc_get_track, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing credentials validated first.

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