get_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that this is a read operation and specifies return contents, but omits details like error handling, authentication needs, or behavior for non-existent IDs. Acceptable but not rich.

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-load the action and immediately specify the return payload. 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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the core context: purpose, lookup key, and returned fields. It could mention edge-case behavior or read-only intent explicitly, but the coverage is strong for its simplicity.

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% for the only parameter (orderId), and the schema already describes its purpose. The description adds no extra semantic depth beyond 'by ID', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('order') and states the exact lookup key ('by ID'). It also lists what data is returned (status, products, payment), which effectively distinguishes it from create_order and instance-related sibling tools.

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 clearly implies the tool should be used whenever an existing order's details are needed. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the read-vs-create distinction is inferable from sibling names. Lacks formal 'use this instead of' guidance, but context is clear.

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