ddg_order_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'fetch', implying a read operation. It does not disclose what happens if the artifact is not ready, required permissions, or potential side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words, efficiently conveying the core action and key constraints. It is front-loaded and earns its place.

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 tool's moderate complexity (two params, many siblings), the description omits preconditions, error handling, and the nature of the artifact. The output schema is present but does not compensate for missing usage and behavioral context.

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 coverage is 0%—the description does not explain the parameters. The phrase 'agent-scoped' hints at agent_id's role, but order_id is left implicit. No detail on format or constraints is added beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'DDG order artifact', and specifies scoping ('agent-scoped') and condition ('when ready'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ddg_order_status (which provides status) and ddg_submit_order (which submits orders).

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 'when ready' implies usage context but does not explicitly state preconditions (e.g., check order status first) or provide alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are given.

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