IPO Order Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and not destructive. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., no mention of authentication, rate limits, or output structure). It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence of 13 words, immediately conveying the tool's purpose and primary input. Every word is essential, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter, annotations covering safety, and an existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It could optionally note that the order_id must come from ipo_orders, but this is not required for correct usage.

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 coverage is 100% and the description of 'order_id' as 'IPO order ID' mirrors the schema property description. No additional meaning, format, or examples are provided beyond what the schema already gives. Baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('Show detailed information'), the resource ('a specific IPO order'), and the identifier ('by order_id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ipo_orders (which lists orders) and order_detail (for regular orders) through the specific mention of IPO orders.

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 implies usage when you have an order_id for an IPO order, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., ipo_orders for listing, order_detail for non-IPO orders). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are stated.

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