get_order

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

No annotations are provided (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, or other safety indicators), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get full details' without clarifying whether this is a safe read, what 'full details' encompasses, whether it might fail for certain order states, or what the response structure looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

A single efficient sentence with zero waste. The description is appropriately short for a simple get-by-id tool. It front-loads the primary action clearly. It could arguably be slightly more informative, but for a one-parameter read tool, this length is reasonable.

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?

This is a single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the basic purpose but leaves significant gaps: no output structure, no error/success conditions, no explanation of related sibling context (list_orders returns summaries vs this returns full details). For a moderately complex retrieve operation, the description should add a bit more context than a bare single sentence.

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?

With only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the 'id' parameter. The phrase 'by id' loosely signals that id is the order identifier, but the description doesn't clarify what kind of id (system ID vs external reference), or its format/length. However, with a single self-evident parameter named 'id' and the tool named 'get_order', the parameter meaning is inherently clear from naming context.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get full details of one order') and specifies the lookup key ('by id'). It's distinct from siblings like list_orders (which lists multiple) and get_product (different resource). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from list_customers or other get_ tools, though the resource name is self-evident.

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 intent is implied: use when you need full details of a single order. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use get_order vs list_orders, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., order must exist), and no alternative tools named. Basic context exists but no exclusions are provided.

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