get_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explicitly states 'Read-only; does not place, modify, or cancel anything,' which is the critical behavioral disclosure for a trading-related tool. It also states the return is 'a single order object,' though it does not discuss failure modes or auth requirements.

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 compact and well-organized, with the verb, resource, and scope front-loaded. The labeled Args and Returns sections make each piece easy to parse, and every sentence contributes purpose, behavioral safety, parameter meaning, or return shape.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the return type, read-only guarantee, and full parameter semantics. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly; the only minor gap, explicit sibling routing, is already covered by the clear scoping language.

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 coverage is 0%, so the Args section must supply the meaning, and it does. It clarifies that account_number is the plain account number as shown to the user and not the internal account hash, and it identifies order_id as the Schwab order id to look up. Both parameters are meaningfully documented beyond their bare titles.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('Get'), a singular resource ('one order'), and a scoping qualifier ('in one Schwab account'), which clearly separates it from list_orders and other siblings. The read-only line further clarifies what the tool does not do.

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 clearly scopes the operation to retrieving a single known order by account and order id, which implies when it should be used. It does not explicitly contrast it with list_orders or name exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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