get_order_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the 'past order' scope, clarifying this is not a current-basket operation. The note about using the numeric ID from get_order_history (not OrderNumber) provides practical behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Two short sentences plus a single-argument doc; every sentence earns its place. No redundancy or filler, with the key purpose stated first.

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 read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed: purpose, input source, and the ID type. Return values are covered by the output schema, so no additional explanation is required.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: it explains that order_id is the numeric internal ID (not OrderNumber) from get_order_history. This is crucial for correct invocation and adds meaning the schema alone lacks.

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 opens with 'Fetch the line items of one past order' – a specific verb ('fetch'), specific resource ('line items of one past order'), and clearly differentiates from siblings like get_order_history (which lists orders) and get_basket (current cart).

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?

States that order_id must be the numeric ID from get_order_history, explicitly excluding OrderNumber. This implies the workflow: call get_order_history first, then use the returned ID here. It doesn't name alternatives explicitly but provides clear contextual guidance.

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