get_amazon_order_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return data structure comprehensively but lacks behavioral details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or performance implications (e.g., latency for certain parameters). The mention of 'Adds ~2s per shipment' for 'fetch_tracking_numbers' is a positive behavioral hint, but more is needed for a higher score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured list of returned data. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, and the second elaborates on the comprehensive return data. No wasted words 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does well to detail the return data structure, but it lacks context on authentication, errors, or performance limits. For a tool with 5 parameters and no structured safety hints, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get comprehensive details'), resource ('for a specific Amazon order by order ID'), and scope ('Returns full order data including...'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'get_amazon_orders' (which likely lists orders) and 'get_amazon_transactions' (which focuses on transactions).

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 for retrieving detailed order information when an order ID is known, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_amazon_orders' (for listing orders) or 'export_amazon_orders_csv' (for bulk export). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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