get_order

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that following an order re-sends it, re-checks payment, blocks briefly waiting on the store, and never triggers payment. It also flags that store-provided text is untrusted data, a genuinely useful injection warning. Auth requirements and idempotency of the re-send remain unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary list behavior, then the parameter mode, then the behavioral caveats and safety clause. Dense but every clause adds information; only the delivery-report phrasing is slightly vague.

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 a single optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral and safety context an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around permissions and how the re-send interacts with a purchase already in progress.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema's 'An order id': it explains that supplying it triggers a re-send, a payment check, a wait, and a status/delivery report rather than a plain fetch.

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 and resource ('List this agent's product orders') and scopes it to the calling agent, then names the mode-switch parameter. It is distinguishable from buy_product and list_contacts, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 makes the two modes clear — omit order_id to list, pass order_id to follow one — so usage is implied by the parameter. However it names no alternative tool and gives no exclusions, so an agent gets no explicit routing guidance.

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