dickerdata_get_order_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not confirm read-only behavior, mention authorization requirements, rate limits, or how the three parameters interact (e.g., precedence, requiredness). It also omits any error behavior or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the identifier options. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions), the one-sentence description is incomplete. It omits whether any parameter is required, how parameters interact, what 'details' include, and any usage constraints. An agent would lack sufficient guidance to reliably construct a correct invocation.

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. It does add meaning by stating the three parameters are alternative identifiers ('by order number, account code, or your PO reference'), but it does not clarify whether at least one is required, how they combine (OR vs AND), or provide any format guidance. This minimal explanation is insufficient given zero schema-level descriptions.

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 'Get' and the resource 'details for a single Dicker Data order', and enumerates three identifiers (order number, account code, PO reference). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_orders by focusing on a single order, but does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 one of the three identifiers and need order details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings (e.g., list_orders for multiple orders, get_order_serials for serials). No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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