get_order_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description states that the tool fetches data and returns a dict with specific fields. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is adequate for a simple read operation but stops short of full behavioral transparency.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, then an Args section and Returns section. No redundant words. The structure front-loads the main action and uses clear formatting. Every sentence adds value.

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 that an output schema exists (signaled in context), the description still usefully outlines the return structure including fields like order_id, items, and their subfields. This provides enough detail for an agent to understand what to expect. The tool is simple (one required parameter, no undefined behavior), so the description is 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 input schema only defines the parameter 'order_id' as a required string. The description adds essential context: 'The WooCommerce order ID (from list_recent_orders).' This tells the agent where to obtain the ID and reassures its format. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by providing this critical usage hint.

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 'Fetch the line items for a specific Tuma250 order.' It uses a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('line items for a specific order'), and the tool name 'get_order_details' aligns perfectly. Among siblings like 'list_recent_orders' and 'get_cart', this tool's purpose is distinctly to get detailed order information for a single order.

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 a clear usage hint by specifying that the order_id should come from 'list_recent_orders'. This implies a workflow sequence. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention any alternatives, so it misses explicit exclusions. The context signals show sibling tools that help define boundaries, but the description lacks a direct 'when to use' vs 'when not to use' statement.

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