Get order context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly discloses the scope (facts only) and explicitly states what it does not do (no diagnosis), which is valuable behavioral context beyond a simple 'get' statement.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and content, and ending with a clear boundary. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema.

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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides enough detail on what is returned: the operational fact categories and the no-diagnosis boundary. It is complete for an AI agent to know when and how to invoke it.

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 schema has only orderId with 0% coverage, but the description's 'for one order' makes the parameter's purpose self-evident. While it doesn't explicitly define orderId, the context of gathering information for a single order adequately compensates for the sparse schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Gather') and identifies a clear resource ('operational facts for one order') with enumerated facets. It distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it returns facts only, no diagnosis, positioning it as the evidence-gathering step.

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 gives clear context: it is for investigating why an order may be delayed. It also sets an exclusion ('no diagnosis') that indirectly points to diagnosing tools, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as diagnose_order_delay.

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