get_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get details' implies a read, but nothing is said about authorization (whether the order must belong to the caller), rate limits, or what happens with an invalid/foreign order_id. The behavior is essentially undisclosed.

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 single summary sentence is front-loaded and waste-free. The 'Args:' block is largely redundant with the schema, but it costs little and does not obscure the intent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a tool with no annotations and no param documentation, the description should at minimum clarify how order_id is obtained and how it relates to the history/tracking siblings. That gap keeps it at minimum viable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, yet 'order_id: The order ID' merely restates the parameter name. It adds no format, provenance, or constraint information the schema does not already encode.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get details for a specific order'), which is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like place_order and reorder. However, it gives no differentiation from the closely related read siblings get_order_history and track_order, leaving the agent to guess which read tool returns what.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_order_history or track_order, and no prerequisites stated. The only contextual hint is the required order_id, which the agent must infer comes from a prior place_order or history lookup.

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