get_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The term '조회' implies a read-only operation, and the statement about all statuses adds a key behavioral trait. It does not disclose return format or error behavior, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the status flexibility note. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 get-by-ID tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core function and an important behavioral nuance (all statuses). It lacks an explicit return structure description, but 'detailed information' is reasonably clear for a common lookup pattern.

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%, so parameters are already documented well: order_id references create_order response and account_seq references get_accounts. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter meaning beyond this, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves detailed information for a specific order, using the verb '조회합니다' (retrieves). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_orders' by targeting a single order ('특정 주문') rather than a list, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 useful context that all order statuses are queryable, which helps decide when to use this tool. Parameter descriptions in the schema additionally reference prerequisites (create_order for orderId, get_accounts for accountSeq), guiding the agent on required prior calls. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_orders for listing or when not to use this tool.

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