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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful context that the return value is shaped specifically for mhlb_update_order. It doesn't disclose error behavior or parameter selection rules, but with annotations this is adequate.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the core action ('Get an existing order in editable form') and the second clause about update_order is also informative. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 read-only getter with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is adequate. It omits explanation of how the three optional parameters interact (e.g., whether orderId alone is sufficient) and assumes the agent knows update_order's input shape, but the explicit link to update_order fills the most important gap.

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 all three parameters have individual descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('existing order') and adds that the result is in an 'editable form' intended for mhlb_update_order. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mhlb_get_order_form, though not explicitly. Minor gap: it doesn't contrast with all potentially confusing siblings.

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 phrase 'the model mhlb_update_order expects back' strongly implies the intended use case: fetch an order to pass to the update tool. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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