accesso_get_order

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: no authentication is needed and the emailed link acts as the credential. It also clarifies that the tool can parse links from multiple venue types, which goes beyond the structured fields.

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 tightly packed sentences deliver the core behavior, output scope, venue coverage, and authentication requirement with no wasted words. The most important action is front-loaded, and every clause adds useful 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields. It also covers authentication, venue scope, and the input source. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 baseline of 3 applies; all three parameters (url, view, include_terms) are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema covers the semantics fully.

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 'Read' and names the exact resource: an accesso ticket link and its order-level contents. Listing 'every admission' with product, participant, date, time, barcode text, and merchant instructions clearly distinguishes it from a per-ticket sibling 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: it works for any accesso-powered venue and requires no login because the emailed link itself is the credential. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the intended scenario is unambiguous.

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