Orders get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing a safe, read-only operation. The description adds context about the buyer-side scope and the breadth of data returned (line items, tracking, payments, returns/disputes), which goes beyond a bare 'get' call. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context for an agent.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The main functionality is front-loaded, and the alternative is given in the second sentence. Every word adds value.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it states what data is returned, clarifies buyer vs. seller scope, and points to the alternative. No critical information for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter order_id as 'UUID of the order to fetch' (100% coverage). The description does not repeat parameter details, and since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch'), a precise resource ('a single order'), and enumerates the included data (line items, shipment/tracking, payment status, returns/disputes). It also differentiates itself from seller_get_order, making its scope unambiguous even without inspecting the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Buyer-side view — for seller-side use seller_get_order.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool and when to use an alternative, leaving no ambiguity about the buyer/seller distinction. The guidance is concise and actionable.

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