get_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'including execution details', hinting at the return structure, but omits read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., missing order). For a read operation, more transparency is needed.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and scope. No extraneous words. Every token adds value.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and the inclusion of execution details. It lacks mention of error handling or defaults, but overall is sufficient for an agent to understand basic functionality.

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%: both orderId and accountSeq are described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. Since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate, but description could explain parameter interplay (e.g., accountSeq fallback).

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?

Description clearly states '주문 상세 조회 (체결 내역 포함)' which translates to 'Order detail inquiry (including execution details)'. This specifically identifies the tool as retrieving detailed order information with fill data, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_orders (listing) or cancel_order (cancelling).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_orders for multiple orders, get_trades for trade-specific data). It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring an existing order ID, nor does it state when not to use it.

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