Find Action by OrderId

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source report (Advanced Action Listing) and what info it returns (Status and reversal reason), but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, or any potential side effects. The verb 'Trace' implies a safe lookup, but explicit behavioral guarantees are missing.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a key differentiation. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 explains key return elements (Status, Status Detail/DispositionCode) and the data source, giving a reasonable picture for a lookup tool. However, it does not mention pagination, limits, or whether the result is a single action or list, and it omits the optional date range defaults that are only in the schema. Slightly more detail would make it fully complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions OrderId in context but does not add details about startDate/endDate formats or defaults beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb ('Trace') and resource ('a specific order by its OrderId via the Advanced Action Listing report'), and distinguishes itself from the 'plain Actions endpoint' by emphasizing its unique OrderId filtering capability. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling tools like list_actions or get_action.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (to trace a specific order by OrderId, e.g., a test order) and explicitly notes that the plain Actions endpoint cannot filter by OrderId, effectively excluding that alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other alternative tools like run_report, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives guide.

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