mhlb_get_order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety of the read is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by flagging that returned text is third-party authored and must be treated as data, never instructions — a real prompt-injection warning that no structured field conveys.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return-shape contract, followed by the security caveat. No filler or 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 usefully characterizes the return (a `data` model consumable by mhlb_update_order) and covers the untrusted-content risk. The one gap is that all three identifiers are optional, yet the description never says which combination is required to resolve an order.

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 each of the three optional identifiers (eventId, orderId, studentId) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, precedence, or selection guidance for these identifiers, 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 an existing order) and pins down the return shape as the editable model that mhlb_update_order expects. That link separates it cleanly from sibling mhlb_get_order_form and mhlb_print_orders, which serve different presentation purposes.

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 round-trip contract ('data is the model mhlb_update_order expects back') makes the intended workflow — fetch, edit, update — explicit and actionable. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g. vs. mhlb_get_order_form for display), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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