get_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the return content (order status, fill details, timestamps) but leaves the read-only/non-destructive nature implicit in the word 'Get' and does not mention errors, permissions, or rate limits. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a one-line argument explanation and a one-line return summary. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no filler.

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 a single required parameter and an output schema that can document return fields, the description covers the essential operation, parameter source, and return summary. It omits explicit read-only confirmation and error behavior, but the overall context is adequate for a low-complexity tool.

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 schema provides only the type and title for order_id, but the description adds meaningful provenance: 'The order ID returned when placing an order.' For a single parameter, this fully tells the agent where the value comes from and how to obtain it.

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 states a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('a specific order by ID'), clearly differentiating this single-order lookup from sibling get_orders. The phrase 'by ID' also distinguishes it from position-lookup or quote tools.

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 provides clear context (use when you have an order ID from placement) and implicitly excludes list operations, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_orders for listing or cancel_order for management. This is sufficient for a simple lookup, though not maximally explicit.

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