get_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying safety, but lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Get order details by ID'—front-loading the core action and key input. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include (e.g., status, items, timestamps), error conditions, or behavioral traits like idempotency. For a tool in a financial context with siblings, more context is needed for effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'orderId' documented as 'Order ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is contributed.

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 order details by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('order details'), specifying retrieval by identifier. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_account_orders' (list) or 'get_today_filled_orders' (filtered), though not explicitly named. However, it lacks full specificity on what 'details' include, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention using 'get_account_orders' for listing orders or 'get_today_filled_orders' for recent ones, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid order ID. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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