boond_orders_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' communicates a read-only retrieval with no destructive side effects, which is the main relevant behavior. It does not mention error cases, authorization needs, or response behavior, but for a simple getter this is adequate.

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 five words, front-loaded with the operation and resource, and contains no filler. 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?

For a one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential input side completely. It does not describe the return shape or error behavior, but the low complexity makes those gaps less critical.

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 has zero parameter descriptionsaine, so the description's 'by ID' provides some semantic clarification that the id parameter is the order identifier. Still, the parameter name 'id' already suggests this, so the added value is limited.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('order'), and a lookup method ('by ID'), making the core function immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like boond_orders_search, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies this tool is for retrieving a single known order, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over boond_orders_search or mention any alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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