Get Sezzle Order

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the output is a minimized financial projection and specifically excludes customer PII, which goes beyond the structured hints. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the action, resource, and output characteristics without redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and the essential nature of the return value. It could be improved by mentioning error cases or explicitly contrasting with sibling tools, but the existing annotations and schema handle safety and parameter details, making it sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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 single parameter `order_uuid` is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) as 'Sezzle order UUID.' The description does not add any extra parameter details such as format, requirements, or relationships, so it does not enhance the schema's already sufficient explanation.

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 ('Read'), identifies the resource ('documented Sezzle v2 order'), and specifies the output ('minimized financial projection without customer PII'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sezzle_get_order_report by focusing on a single order and emphasizing PII removal.

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 implies usage for reading a single documented order by UUID but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as sezzle_get_order_report or sezzle_get_settlement_details. No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list.

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