Get purchase order

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description spends its words on what extra data comes back – every line item with description, cost type, quantity, unit, unit cost, total and cost code. It omits behavior on a missing/invalid id, which is the main remaining gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the returned object, then the detail expansion. No filler or repetition of annotation facts.

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 return-value burden and does so by enumerating line-item fields, though it partly defers to 'what list_purchase_orders gives' rather than naming those base fields outright.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage and the schema already says 'purchase_order_id from list_purchase_orders'. The description reinforces that the id identifies a single PO and names its provenance, adding small but consistent meaning.

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+resource ('one purchase order with supplier, dates, status and its line items') and explicitly contrasts it with the list sibling ('what list_purchase_orders gives plus every line item'), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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 comparison to list_purchase_orders makes the selection context clear: use this when you need a single PO expanded with line items. It doesn't state exclusions or error conditions, but the sibling contrast does most of the routing work.

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