Orders Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the required OAuth scope (read_orders), the HTTP route, the API version/stability marker, and a 64-bit precision caveat for products[].id. Only the return shape and pagination/size behaviour are left 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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action, then the precision caveat, then request metadata. Nothing is padded, though the HTTP method/route line is largely redundant for an agent that only needs the tool name and arguments.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and beyond the products[].id caveat it says nothing about the order object's shape or the effect of fields/aggregates trimming. For a simple single-resource read with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is adequate but leaves visible gaps.

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 four parameters (id, fields, aggregates, response_format) are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no parameter-level semantics — the 64-bit note concerns returned data, not inputs — so it neither compensates for nor extends the schema.

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?

"Get one order" states a specific verb and resource, and the singular scope implicitly separates it from tiendanube_orders_list. It stops short of naming the sibling or spelling out what makes a single-order fetch distinct (e.g. full detail, aggregates), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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_orders_list, tiendanube_draft_orders_get, or the related order sub-resource tools. The only usage signal is that an id is required, which the schema already enforces.

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