Get sales order

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint true; openWorldHint true), so the bar is lower. The description adds a useful structural note that the read spans header, lines, and releases rather than just the header, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or lookup failure behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every clause (verb, resource composition, key parameter) earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the annotations cover the safety/idempotency profile. For a one-parameter read the description is sufficient, with the only shortfall being the absence of usage context relative to sibling getters.

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 a single well-documented required parameter (Epicor OrderNum). 'by OrderNum' merely restates what the schema already provides, adding no format or domain meaning beyond it; 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 (Read) and a precisely scoped resource (Kinetic sales order header, lines, and releases), keyed by OrderNum. The resource is naturally distinct from siblings get_customer/get_part/get_shipments, though the description never names them explicitly.

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 a single-record lookup via 'by OrderNum' but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing away from the sibling get_* tools. Nothing tells an agent whether this is the right tool for listing or searching orders versus fetching one by key.

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