Get Planned Order

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

The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint). It does not mention potential side effects, error behavior (e.g., what happens if the order number doesn't exist), or any required permissions. The single word 'Get' is consistent with read-only, but no additional context is given.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is extremely concise with no redundant words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description is minimal and does not mention what data the response will contain (e.g., full planned order details). Since there is no output schema to fill this gap, the agent may lack information about the return value. However, the tool is simple with one parameter and high schema coverage, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 meaning by stating 'by its order number', clarifying that the 'plannedOrder' parameter is the identifier used to retrieve the record. The schema description only says 'Planned order number', so the tool description provides the context of how the parameter is used, adding value beyond the 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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'planned order', and the method 'by its order number'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like s4_planned_order_list, s4_planned_order_create, and s4_planned_order_update, indicating it's for retrieving a single record.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like s4_planned_order_list (for listing multiple orders) or other retrieval tools. No explicit instructions on when to use or not use, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and context.

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