get_work_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully enumerate the returned record fields (status, technician, schedule, NTE, customer, location, parent WO, close-out fields), which substitutes for a missing output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, whether it errors on unknown numbers, or read-only guarantees.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by the return contents. Efficient, with only mild redundancy in the field enumeration, which earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers both what it does and what it returns, which is the key missing piece. It is adequately complete, though usage guidance relative to siblings remains absent.

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 single wo_number parameter, including its pattern and example, is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by its number' and adds no meaning beyond it; 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?

States a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('a single work order'), and the phrase 'a single' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_pending_work. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied: you call it when you already have a work order number. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_pending_work, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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