Get order options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (no mention of permissions, caching, or what the returned option set looks like), so it earns only the baseline credit for an annotated read 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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical enumeration is the only substantive content it carries.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is close to sufficient, and naming the option categories partially compensates for the missing return documentation. It still leaves the ordering-workflow context and the distinction from sibling option tools implicit.

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% and the sole parameter 'plan' is documented in-schema as 'Plan ID from get_order_plans', including its integer/bounds constraints. The description adds only 'for a plan', which is redundant with the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Get configurable options') and enumerates the option categories (OS, resources, periods), so the agent knows what comes back. However, it does not differentiate from closely-named siblings like get_plan_options, get_os_options, and get_period_options, which sound like overlapping or subset operations.

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 this is a step in the order flow (the plan ID comes from get_order_plans) but gives no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. With several near-duplicate sibling tools available, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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