Order Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the core behavioral traits are covered. The description adds value by listing the return fields, providing transparency about what information is retrieved. There is no contradiction with 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 concise: a single sentence followed by a clear list of return fields. Every word earns its place, and the key purpose is front-loaded. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, high schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete enough. It specifies the return fields and the role of the parameter. A mention of any potential null fields or error conditions could elevate it, but it's already adequate.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already explains the parameter (order_id and its origin). The description does not add further semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific order.' It specifies the resource (order) and the action (get), and the return fields are listed, distinguishing it from sibling tools like submit_order or history_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 implicitly guides usage by noting that the order_id is returned by submit_order or listed in today_orders/history_orders, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like history_executions or today_executions. More explicit guidance on when-to-use vs. when-not-to would improve this dimension.

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