get_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' clearly indicates a read operation, and 'all available details' plus 'execution information' gives some sense of scope. However, it does not explain any prerequisites, edge cases, or what happens when the order is not found or when account_seq is mismatched.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'Get all available details' immediately states the action and scope, and 'including execution information' earns its place by adding useful content.

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?

Although an output schema exists and covers return values, the description omits key context needed for correct invocation: what account_seq means, how the two parameters interact, and how this tool differs from get_orders. With no annotations and minimal schema descriptions, the definition leaves material gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining the two required parameters. It only weakly implies order_id through 'one order' and never explains account_seq or how account_seq relates to the order lookup. The agent is left to infer the parameter semantics from names and types alone.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get ... one order') and adds 'including execution information,' which clarifies what details are returned. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the singular 'one order' helps differentiate it from list-style tools like get_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 phrase 'for one order' implies this is for fetching a single order's full details, distinct from get_orders or place_order. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention of alternatives such as using get_orders for collection-level queries.

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