get_order

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

The annotations already indicate this is a read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description goes beyond the schema to list the returned data fields, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral aspects like potential errors (e.g., not found) or that the operation is idempotent. The added field list provides some value, but not extensive context.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and key fields. Every word contributes to usability, with no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately structured for quick consumption by an agent.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which likely details the response structure), the description covers the main aspects: what data is returned and the operation type. The main gap is the lack of explicit error handling or prerequisites, but the output schema fills some void. Overall, it's sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With only one parameter (order_id) and 0% schema description coverage, the description's main contribution is the returned fields, which indirectly implies the parameter is the booking identifier. However, it doesn't explicitly explain the format or usage of order_id (e.g., from where to get it). The description adds some value by clarifying the purpose of the parameter, but not enough to fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 that the tool retrieves a booking and lists the key data fields (itinerary, price, passengers, fare conditions, arrival_local). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('booking'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like book_offer or confirm_order_change, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 conveys that the tool is used to fetch a booking, which implies it's for retrieval and not for modification—consistent with sibling tools that handle changes (quote_order_change, confirm_cancellation). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some inference needed.

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