get_order_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., order status, items, tracking). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by concise 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing necessary information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics, but doesn't explain return values (e.g., what fields are included) or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with no structured output definition, more detail on returns would improve completeness.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'order_id', specifying it's 'The ID of the package order'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type (integer) and title ('Order Id'). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing essential semantic information, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., numeric range).

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific package order'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_orders_by_date_range' (which retrieves multiple orders) and 'get_package_orders' (which likely lists orders without details). However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from 'get_delivery_summary' or 'get_schedule', which prevents a perfect score.

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 by specifying it's for 'a specific package order' (singular), suggesting it should be used when you have an order ID. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_orders_by_date_range' for multiple orders or 'get_delivery_summary' for broader delivery info. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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