Get order items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns line items but discloses nothing about error behavior for invalid or nonexistent order IDs, whether the order must exist first, pagination of results, or what the response structure looks like. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words and the core action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter retrieval tool, though it errs on the side of under-specification rather than richness.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what line items are returned, but it doesn't. It also lacks usage context and behavioral details. For a tool with one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description is the only source of information and it provides only the bare minimum, leaving an agent guessing about return format and error conditions.

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 coverage is 100% - the single orderId parameter is already documented as 'The Amazon order ID.' The description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema; it merely implies the order must be specific without elaborating format or provenance. At the baseline 3 for high schema coverage, the description is adequate but adds nothing extra.

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 uses a specific verb (Returns) and resource (line items) with clear scope (for a specific order). It distinguishes itself from get_orders by indicating it operates on a single order's contents rather than listing orders. However, it doesn't explicitly name or differentiate from the sibling get_orders, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that a valid orderId must be obtained from get_orders first, nor does it explain when one would choose get_order_items over get_orders or the listing tools. The prerequisite relationship with get_orders is left entirely implicit.

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