Get order items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the official request body should be passed as-is, giving a glimpse into how the tool expects input, but it says nothing about safety, side effects, return value, or any constraints. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 extremely concise, containing a single phrase with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the resource ('購入商品') and includes a parenthetical instruction about the request body. While it could be more structured, it is appropriately brief for a tool with one parameter.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is far too sparse to fully inform an agent. It does not explain what the tool returns, what fields the request body requires, or any contextual prerequisites. The reference to 'official request body' assumes external knowledge, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema defines a single 'body' object with no property details (0% coverage). The description adds value by specifying that the body must be the official request body for the underlying getOrderItem API, which provides some semantic context beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the actual structure of that body, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 title states 'Get order items' and the description says '購入商品API: getOrderItem', which clearly references retrieving ordered items. However, the description is terse and does not elaborate on the scope or differentiate it from similar sibling tools like rms_search_order_items, making it only moderately clear.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hint is to pass the official request body as-is, which is more of a parameter instruction than a usage scenario. It does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools.

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