Order Fulfillments Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context — the required read_shipping scope and the pinned API version 2025-03 — which affects whether the call will succeed. It stops short of describing the payload shape.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by route, scope, and version — no filler. The HTTP line partially duplicates the schema's required parameters, keeping it just short of ideal.

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?

A read-only GET with full schema coverage and complete annotations needs little prose, and the scope/version lines cover the auth dimension. What is missing is the disambiguation an agent actually needs: what a "legacy fulfillment" contains versus the newer fulfillment_orders resources, and when each applies.

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% and every parameter (id, order_id, fields, response_format) is documented there, so baseline 3 applies. The description's URL template only restates the two path parameters and adds nothing about the fields or response_format options.

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 legacy fulfillment event") and pins the exact route GET /orders/{order_id}/fulfillments/{id}. It is clearly a single-resource read, distinct from the sibling list tool, though the word "event" is slightly at odds with the "fulfillments/{id}" path and the definition never explains how this differs from tiendanube_fulfillment_orders_get.

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 adjective "legacy" weakly implies this should be used only for older fulfillment records rather than the fulfillment_orders family, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use rule is stated. The agent is left to infer the choice between tiendanube_order_fulfillments_get and tiendanube_fulfillment_orders_get.

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