Get Payment Order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, clearly establishing a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond 'specific' and 'details'—no mention of response format, errors, or pagination. It is consistent with annotations and adds minimal value.

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, succinct sentence with no filler. The verb and object are placed right at the start, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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 strong annotations, the description is workable but lacks specificity about what 'details' include. There is no output schema, so the agent cannot infer the returned order structure. It would benefit from mentioning that it returns the full order object or key fields.

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 fully covers the only parameter, orderId, with a description 'Order ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as format or source, so it does not exceed the schema's existing coverage.

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 'Get details of a specific payment order' clearly identifies the action (get details) and resource (payment order). It distinguishes itself from sibling ghl_list_orders by emphasizing specificity, and from ghl_get_invoice by naming the exact resource type.

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 word 'specific' implies the tool is for retrieving one order by ID, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus ghl_list_orders or other getters. No alternatives are named, so usage context is only implied.

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