accesso_get_order

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world, and the description is consistent with that. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that no login is needed and that the emailed link itself acts as the credential, plus it specifies what data will be returned. No contradictions found.

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 compact sentences carry substantial useful information: the core function, the return contents, venue coverage, and authentication behavior. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of communicating return value, and it does so by listing the key fields. It also covers access scope and auth requirements. Minor gaps remain around how this differs from accesso_resolve_link or accesso_get_wallet_passes, but the description is still sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema fully documents url, view, and include_terms. The tool description does not need to repeat parameter details, and it adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond implying the url comes from the emailed link. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read an accesso ticket link') and enumerates the exact output fields: order number, product, participant, date, start time, barcode text, and merchant instructions. This clearly distinguishes the order-level view from a single-ticket view such as accesso_get_ticket.

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 gives clear usage context: use this when you have an emailed accesso ticket link and need the order plus all admissions. It also states coverage across accesso venues and explains that no login is required, which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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