ls_get_order

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (status, total, currency, customer info, payment details), which is not present in annotations or input schema.

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 sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose and return fields. It is concise and front-loaded with key information, with no superfluous content.

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 simplicity of a read operation and the presence of annotations, the description is fairly complete. It lists expected outputs, compensating for the lack of an output schema. Minor gaps exist regarding error handling and parameter usage details, but not critical.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, merely restating 'by ID' which aligns with the orderId parameter. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a specific order by ID and lists the included information (status, total, currency, customer info, payment details). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like ls_list_orders.

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 that this tool is for fetching a single order by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like ls_list_orders or other get tools. No exclusions or context are provided.

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