Retrieve detailed sales order information by ID, optionally including related customer, location, and line items.
Get detailed information about a specific sales order
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Related data to include (e.g., customer, location, lines, lines.product) | |
| salesOrderId | Yes | The sales order ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0-alpha.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides essentially none: it does not say what happens on an invalid/missing ID, whether the read is safe, what 'detailed information' comprises, or how the include expansion behaves. 'Detailed' is the only behavioral claim and it is vague.
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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse, but nothing is wasted.
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 simple two-parameter read with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits error behavior and the semantics of the include expansion, leaving the agent to guess at return shape and failure modes.
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%, with both salesOrderId and the include array (with dot-path examples like lines.product) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when coverage is this high.
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 (Get) and resource (sales order) scoped to a single record via 'specific', which implicitly separates it from list_sales_orders. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so differentiation must be inferred from the name alone.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative (list_sales_orders) or how the 'include' parameter should drive usage. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.