Get Order

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's one addition is that the key is exchange-assigned, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about behavior on a missing/cancelled order or about how much history is returned.

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; the lookup key is stated inline where the agent needs it. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only real omission is what the response contains or what happens when the order is unknown, which is a minor gap for a simple lookup.

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 single parameter is documented in the schema itself. The description's phrasing ("exchange-assigned ID") mirrors the schema text rather than adding new meaning such as format or example values, so the 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 and resource ("Get details for a specific order") plus the lookup key (exchange-assigned ID). The word "specific" implicitly contrasts with the list-style sibling get_open_orders, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to use when it already holds an order ID. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_open_orders, nor any guidance for the case where the ID is a client-side identifier rather than an exchange one.

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