get_conditional_order

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral context. It implies a read operation ('view') but adds no further detail about side effects, idempotency, required permissions, rate limits, or pagination. The minimal description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the obvious.

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 very concise (one sentence) but is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It earns its place only by confirming the tool's purpose, yet it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity. The lack of structure (e.g., bullet points, separation of concerns) limits its utility.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value or structure. It does not. Additionally, for a tool with two parameters (one optional), it omits important context like whether the accountSeq parameter's environment variable fallback is relevant, and what fields the response contains.

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%, and the description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain relationships between parameters, default behavior, or format requirements, resulting in no added value.

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 '조건주문 상세 조회' (View conditional order details) clearly states the action and resource, but it is a tautology of the tool name. It does not distinguish the tool from related siblings like 'get_order' or 'list_conditional_orders', nor does it clarify that this retrieves a single order versus listing multiple.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to use 'get_conditional_order' versus 'list_conditional_orders' or 'get_order'.

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