get_order

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' implies a safe read operation and it lists response content, but it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., missing ID), authorization requirements, or rate-limit implications.

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 that states the action and resource immediately, then lists valuable detail without redundancy. 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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return scope by listing the included fields. It omits error-handling context, but the simplicity of the operation and full schema coverage keep this from being a significant gap.

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 provides 100% coverage of the single parameter (id) with a basic but sufficient description ('Order ID'). The tool description only reinforces that the ID refers to a specific order, adding no new semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'Get' with a clearly identified resource 'specific order' and enumerates the returned data (items, payment status, customer info, timestamps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_orders and get_payment_status.

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 'full details of a specific order' makes it clear this is for retrieving a single order's complete record, contrasting with list-oriented or status-only tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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