get_order

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. 'Get details' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose authentication needs, potential errors, return format, or whether the order must belong to the specified portfolio. It adds no information beyond the obvious read intent.

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. However, it is extremely brief, and while it is structured logically, it omits essential context, making it seem under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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?

This is a simple getter with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, but the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what 'details' include, whether historical or current data is returned, or how this relates to portfolio context. An agent would lack sufficient information to fully set expectations.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters (orderId, portfolioId) have descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only references 'a specific order' without elaborating on the portfolioId parameter. The schema already handles parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get details of a specific order' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific order'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_orders (which lists multiple orders) and get_order_fills (which retrieves fills specifically). The scope is unambiguous and matches the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like list_orders or get_order_fills. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned; it only states what the tool does without any situational direction.

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