Read an Alza order

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's 'Read-only' adds no contradiction. It contributes additional behavioral context by requiring a loaded mobile API access token, explaining the `user_flag` scope selector matches the mobile app, and noting that `part_id` expands the read to part detail.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, use cases, scope semantics, auth prerequisite, and read-only nature. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses inline code formatting for tool references, making it scannable for an agent.

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 read operation with an output schema, this description is complete: it explains what data is available, when to use it, the auth prerequisite, and how it connects to downstream payment tools. No critical operational detail an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it: it clarifies `part_id` triggers a part-detail read and that `user_flag` mirrors the mobile app's scope selection. `initial_created` and `order_id` are adequately covered by the schema itself.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('authenticated user's Alza order') and enumerates the content returned: lines, parts, milestones/tracking, invoice document references, and optional part detail. It also differentiates itself by noting which downstream tools consume the IDs it returns.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: checking order status, delivery tracking, or collecting IDs for `after_order_payments`/`pay_after_order`. It also gives a clear prerequisite and fallback auth sequence (`account_status` → `auth_start` → browser sign-in → `auth_exchange`), which is strong operational guidance.

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