Find network product order

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses null-result semantics, required permission scopes (networking:read vs networking:manage), and backend enforcement of ownership, feature availability, and service 2FA locks. This is rich behavioral context for a read-only lookup tool.

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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then critical null semantics, then permission and backend constraints. It is appropriately sized for the tool’s complexity and front-loads the key 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers the critical null-vs-found behavior, permissions, and backend checks. It does not describe the shape of a non-null order response, which is a minor gap but not a blocker for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents quote_id format and constraints. The description adds useful meaning by emphasizing it must be the ORIGINAL quote_id and that null indicates no order was found.

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 states a specific action (recover an uncertain checkout) tied to the original quote_id, which is effectively finding a network product order. It does not explicitly name or compare against sibling tools like get_network_product_order, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It clearly identifies the scenario (uncertain checkout) and gives an important interpretation rule (order=null does not justify a new payment key). It does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use-this-tool conditions, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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