Order details

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description then adds genuinely non-structured context: the return payload is side-dependent, with buy orders including targeting (order_filter), traffic filter, and domain filter objects. That is useful beyond the schema, though it says nothing about auth, missing-id behavior, or the sell-order payload.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the side-specific caveat. The opening fragment ('Full order details') is terse but effective; minor tightening is possible but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description bears responsibility for describing what comes back, and it only covers the buy-order case — the sell-order return shape is unspecified. It also omits behavior for invalid ids. Adequate but incomplete for a tool whose whole value is its return payload.

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 100%, including enum explanations for side and format, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'order_filter'/domain filter refers to response contents rather than parameters, so it adds no parameter-level meaning.

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-resource pairing ('Full order details') and clarifies that the payload differs by side, with buy orders carrying extra nested structures. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as list_orders or get_order_stats, so an agent still has to infer which retrieval tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Given siblings like list_orders (bulk) and get_order_stats (metrics), the description should say this is the single-order lookup, but it leaves that routing entirely to inference.

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