Fetch order details by ID to review item, amount, delivery date, and refund status for CRM case handling.
Fetch an order (item, amount, delivered_on, refunded). Order ids look like O-5001.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the shape of the returned record and the required id convention (O-5001), which is real behavioral context an agent needs before calling.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return shape, then the id hint. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 one-parameter read with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what comes back and how to form the argument. The only real gap is not-found behavior, which is minor for a lookup of this size.
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 documents nothing (0% coverage) and the single parameter is a bare string, so the description carries the burden. The "Order ids look like O-5001" example gives the format and prefix needed to construct a valid value, which is meaningful beyond the schema — though it doesn't state whether the prefix is case-sensitive or whether ids can be passed without it.
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 ("Fetch an order") and parenthesizes the fields it returns (item, amount, delivered_on, refunded). That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_case and get_customer_profile, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb and the id-format hint — fetch a single order when you have its id. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_case or get_customer_profile, and no statement about what happens when the order doesn't exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.