Get Mail Order Plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it retrieves a plan, implying read-only behavior, but it does not clarify potential edge cases, error conditions, permissions, or response structure. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the primary purpose without filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the returned 'plan' contains, how it relates to mail orders, or any prerequisites or failure modes. The lack of output schema should be compensated with a richer description, which is absent.

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 fully describes the only parameter order_id with 'Mail order ID', giving it 100% schema coverage. Since the description adds no additional meaning beyond that, it meets the baseline of 3. The parameter is simple and well-documented by the schema, so no further compensation is needed.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('the plan for a mail order'), which is specific enough to understand the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate the tool from siblings like mail_orders_list or explain what 'plan' entails, so it loses a point for not distinguishing it in context.

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 tool versus alternatives such as mail_orders_list or other mail order functions. The description implies the usage (when you need the plan of a specific order), but it provides no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative mentions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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