주문 상세 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the return structure but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, error conditions, or dependencies. With annotations in place, the description provides adequate but not extra-rich behavior context.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose and every line provides useful information without redundancy. The formatting makes it easy to scan and parse.

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 simple read-only tool with only two required parameters, the description fully covers both parameters (including their origin context) and provides a detailed list of return fields. Since there is no output schema, detailing the return values is essential and done thoroughly. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are identical to the Args section in the description. The description repeats the same information (including the cross-references) without adding new semantics. Therefore, the description adds no value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Retrieves detailed information for a specific order' with a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (specific order). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like toss_get_orders (which lists orders) and toss_create_order/toss_modify_order/toss_cancel_order (which perform other actions). The parameter cross-references to other tools further reinforce its specific role.

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 on when to use this tool by specifying that accountSeq comes from toss_get_accounts and orderId from toss_create_order or toss_get_orders. This implicitly tells the agent to use this tool after obtaining those identifiers. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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