view_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('view'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't address other important aspects like authentication requirements, error conditions (e.g., what happens if no order exists), response format, or any rate limits. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. Every element ('view,' 'current order,' 'items, prices, and totals') serves a clear purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While it states what data will be returned, it doesn't describe the response structure, format, or potential edge cases. Given the lack of structured documentation about behavior and outputs, the description should provide more contextual information to help the agent understand what to expect from this operation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. This meets the baseline expectation for a zero-parameter tool where the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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 ('view') and resource ('current order') with specific content details ('all items, prices, and totals'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_order' or 'place_order' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar read operations like 'get_menu' which might show different data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether an order must exist first), timing considerations, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_menu' or 'place_order'. The agent must infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.

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