get_draft_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states only that it fetches a resource, which is largely a restatement of the tool's name. It does not mention error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), permissions, read-only guarantees, or any expansion/return details. This is a minimal gap for a read operation but still lacking meaningful context.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is slightly redundant with the tool name but adds 'specific' and 'by ID' which help scope the operation. It could benefit from a bit more context, but it is appropriately short for a simple get-by-ID tool.

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 has low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects) and the schema fully documents the sole parameter. Combined with the description, it is clear what the tool does. The absence of annotations and output schema is not a major gap for a simple read operation, though adding notes about not-found behavior would make it complete.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the single parameter `id` including an example format. The description's 'by ID' adds no new information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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 'Fetch a specific draft order by ID' uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource ('draft order') and the scope ('specific', 'by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_draft_orders (plural) and other get_* tools.

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 when you have a specific draft order ID and need that single entity. It clearly contrasts with listing/getting all draft orders, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top score.

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