ecommerce_retrieveAnOrderV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that amounts are in the smallest currency unit, which is useful, and that line items include the id needed by the fulfil endpoint, linking to related tools. However, it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., order not found), response size, or any side effects (none expected for retrieval). For a read operation, the lack of mutation is implied but not explicit, and the response format is partially described but not formalized.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve one order in full') and immediately lists the key components. The currency note is concise and essential. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's modest complexity (two simple parameters, no output schema) and the description's clarity on what data is returned, the description is nearly complete. It misses a note on error handling or response format, but for a retrieval tool, the missing info is minor. The description covers the essentials and integrates with sibling tools (fulfil endpoint), making it sufficiently 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?

The schema describes both parameters with basic descriptions (order_id and store_id), and coverage is 100%. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only reiterates that order_id identifies the order and store_id identifies the store. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not go beyond that.

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 the tool retrieves one order in full, listing specific components (line items, addresses, totals, fulfilments, tracking). It distinguishes from listOrdersV1 by emphasizing a single order, though it does not explicitly name the sibling. The purpose is concrete and actionable.

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 implies usage for retrieving detailed order information, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus listOrdersV1 or when not to use it. The context of needing full order details is implied but not stated as a criterion. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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