Retrieve order details using an order_id from prior query results. Enumeration of IDs is prohibited, and intern accounts are denied access.
【订单详情】按 order_id 取一单。intern 角色会被拒绝。
【参数从哪来】order_id 形如 ORD-100123，必须来自查询结果，禁止枚举。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses an authorization restriction (interns rejected), an anti-abuse constraint (must come from query results, no enumeration), and signals a read-like retrieval rather than a mutation. It does not describe response details, but an output schema is present.
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 short labeled sections with no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, and operational constraints are separated into a clear 'where the parameter comes from' block.
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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, authorization, parameter format, and provenance. It could explicitly point to biz_query_sales as the source of order_id, but the 'query results' constraint and sibling context make this sufficient.
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 only defines order_id as a string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by specifying the expected format (ORD-100123) and constraining the value to come from query results, explicitly forbidding enumeration. This gives the agent essential semantics the schema lacks.
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 opens with 【订单详情】 and states '按 order_id 取一单', a specific fetch action on a specific resource (a single order). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like biz_get_sku or kb_get_doc.
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?
It gives direct preconditions: order_id must be shaped like ORD-100123, must come from query results, and enumeration is forbidden. It also states a hard exclusion ('intern 角色会被拒绝'). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.