Draft Orders Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context — the required scope 'read_draft_orders' and the pinned API version 2025-03 — but says nothing about response shape, pagination, or error behavior.

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?

Four short lines with the action front-loaded, followed by the HTTP route, scope, and API version. Nothing is padded, though the HTTP route largely restates what the tool name already implies.

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 could note what a draft order object contains or that `fields` trims the payload, which matters for an agent deciding how to call it. As written it covers access requirements adequately but leaves the return-value picture to inference.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (id, fields, response_format) are already documented with examples and an enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the path template, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Get a draft order"), which distinguishes it from the sibling list/create/update/delete/confirm draft-order tools by the verb alone. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus tiendanube_draft_orders_list, tiendanube_orders_get, or tiendanube_draft_orders_confirm. The only conditional information is the required scope line, which is an auth precondition rather than usage guidance.

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