eb_order

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, lowering the bar. The description adds minor context (buyer-side record) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like return format, error handling, or expansion behavior. It is not contradictory, but it does not enrich transparency beyond the annotation.

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?

The description is two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the purpose, and the second provides crucial context on where order IDs can be found. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and easy to scan.

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 simple single-order retrieval tool with readOnly annotation and fully described parameters, the description is adequate. It adds the buyer-side distinction and ID source, which helps correct tool selection. It does not describe return values, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make this less critical. Overall, fairly complete for its complexity.

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?

Both parameters (order_id and expand) are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the schema handles the heavy lifting. The description mentions where order IDs come from, which aids in knowing the value to pass, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Thus, 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a single order by id' with a specific resource (order) and scope (buyer-side record behind a ticket). It distinguishes from sibling tools like eb_org_orders by clarifying it retrieves buyer-side orders and references where IDs originate. This is a clear, specific verb+resource statement.

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 provides clear context by stating that 'Order ids appear in eb_my_orders / eb_event_orders results,' which tells users when to use this tool (when they have an order id from those results). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks a direct exclusion. This is clear context without full alternative guidance.

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