get_order_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the order_id doesn't exist. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is necessary given the schema coverage gap. There's minimal waste, though the formatting includes extra whitespace that slightly reduces efficiency.

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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately, though it lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which holds it back from a perfect score.

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 description includes an Args section that documents the single parameter 'order_id' as 'The sale order ID', adding semantic meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage and only provides type integer). This fully compensates for the schema gap, but since there's only one parameter, it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full order details'), and specifies what details are included (lines, totals, partner info). However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_record' or 'get_sales_summary', which prevents 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_record' or 'get_sales_summary', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. The only implied usage is retrieving order details, but without comparison to siblings.

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