Read an order

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral fact: the caller must be a participant in the order (buyer or provider). It says nothing about what happens when the ID is unknown or the caller is not a party, nor about what data comes back, leaving the mutation/safety profile to be inferred from the word "Read".

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, resource, cardinality, and access scope all land immediately. Nothing in it could be cut without losing information.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate: the operation and access scope are clear. But with no output schema and no annotations, an agent gets no signal about the response shape or about not-found versus unauthorized outcomes, which are the main failure modes for an ID lookup.

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?

There is a single parameter, order_id, and the description adds nothing about it — not where to obtain it (from a list_orders result, a quote acceptance, etc.) nor that it must be the order's UUID. The schema's format and pattern do enforce a UUID shape, so the gap is partly covered by structured data.

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?

"Read one of your orders" states a specific verb and resource, and the added "as buyer or provider" clarifies the viewer's role, which distinguishes it from agoreum_place_order or agoreum_deliver_order. It does not explicitly contrast itself with agoreum_list_orders, so the read-one-vs-list distinction is only implied.

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 word "one" implies fetching a single known order rather than enumerating, which hints at when to prefer this over agoreum_list_orders. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no prerequisites such as needing the order ID from a prior call.

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