get_individual_order_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a read-only intent and reveals that the result includes full lifecycle detail/history, but it does not mention any prerequisites, scope restrictions, or data freshness caveats. The disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence communicates the verb, resource, scope, and identifying parameter with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 one-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It identifies the required input and the nature of the returned data, though it leaves usage context and alternative routing to inference.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It restates 'unique order id' but adds no format, example, or provenance. The single parameter is self-descriptive enough for an agent to supply it, but meaningful extra detail is absent.

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 specific verb ('Get'), resource ('single order'), and scope ('full lifecycle detail/history... by its unique order id'). This clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like get_order_book and get_trade_book.

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 makes clear this is for retrieving one specific order via unique_order_id, providing clear context against the sibling list tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the single-order scoping is strong enough guidance.

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