Get order

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the contact-detail gating rule and explicitly states that payment records are never returned, which is non-obvious scope information an agent would otherwise discover only by failing.

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 returned-fields enumeration is front-loaded and dense but every clause maps to actual response content, so little is wasted. It is a long single breath, but the content earns its space given there is no output schema.

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 burden of describing the return shape, and it does so thoroughly (lines, adjustments, totals, addresses gating, exclusions). It is nearly complete; only error/not-found behavior is left unstated.

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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description reinforces the include_contact_details gating but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('One order/invoice in full') and enumerates exactly what is returned, which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_orders. An agent can tell this is the single-record detail fetch without opening the schema.

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 implies lookup-by-ID ('Uses GET /orders/{id}/') but never states when to prefer it over list_orders or what to do if the order is missing. Usage is inferable from the required order_id param, so it lands at minimum-viable rather than explicit guidance.

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