Get Pending Order by ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by mentioning the rate limit ('1 req / 1s') and reinforcing the pending-order scope, which informs the agent about potential non-return of fulfilled or cancelled orders. No contradiction with annotations.

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 plus a rate limit note. The first sentence front-loads the core action and resource. No filler or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, idempotent) and rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains what it retrieves, when to use it, and the rate limit. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently implies the return of a single order object. No additional context seems necessary.

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. The schema already describes orderId as 'The unique numerical ID of the pending order,' and the description adds little beyond restating it as 'unique numerical ID.' The description does not provide additional syntactic or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('a single pending order'), and the identifier ('unique numerical ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pending_orders (which likely lists multiple orders) and get_historical_orders (which likely retrieves non-pending orders). The title further reinforces the scope.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for checking the status of a previously placed order.' This implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., get_pending_orders for listing all pending orders) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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