get_order

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds important behavioral details: it only returns pending orders, responds with 404 if not found, and has a rate limit of 1 request per second. This fully informs the agent of expected outcomes and constraints.

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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a comprehensive list of return fields and a note on error behavior and rate limit. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (context indicates 'Has output schema: true'), the description still thoroughly lists all return fields, covers the 404 error case, and specifies the rate limit. For a single-parameter tool, this provides complete contextual information for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The input schema already covers the single parameter order_id with a description stating 'System order id, as returned when placing.' The description does not add new semantic details about the parameter beyond stating that it fetches by id, which is already implied. Schema coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline.

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 clearly states 'Fetch one pending equity order by its id', specifying the exact action, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_orders (which lists multiple orders) and other get_* tools targeting different entities.

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 implicitly says to use this tool when you have an order id and need a single pending order. It mentions returning 404 if the id does not exist, reinforcing its use for exact lookup. While it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_orders or list_historical_orders, the context is clear enough for an agent.

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