Toss Get Order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the account-resolution prerequisite and user-clarification behavior, but says nothing about error behavior or whether a missing order returns null versus throwing.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but sentences two and three are a copy of the accountSeq schema description, so the description's body duplicates structured data already supplied. It is compact but partly wasteful.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials are present: how to resolve accountSeq and what to do when ambiguous. It is incomplete on how to source orderId and on how this differs from toss_get_conditional_order, both of which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 only 50%, and the description merely repeats the accountSeq schema text verbatim rather than adding anything. The orderId parameter — the primary identifier — is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so there is no hint where an agent obtains a valid orderId.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with cardinality ('Fetch one orders by identifier'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list tool toss_get_orders. The grammar slip ('one orders') is minor but the single-vs-list scope is only implied, never named.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite chain ('call toss_get_accounts first') and an ambiguity policy ('ask the user'), which is real operational guidance. It never says when to pick this over toss_get_orders or toss_get_conditional_order, so tool selection among siblings is still left to inference.

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