Get order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it returns products and totals, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as error handling or the effect of the 'with' parameter on the response. With annotations covering the main safety aspects, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is clear and free of unnecessary words. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise.

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?

This is a simple read tool with good annotations and full schema coverage. The description succinctly explains the core function and output contents. Since there is no output schema, it helps that the description mentions 'products and totals'. It lacks guidance on when to use it versus list_orders, but for a basic get tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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% (both order_id and with are described). The description does not add any additional parameter semantics; it merely implies the 'with' parameter can include products, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'one order' and explicitly mentions the included data 'products and totals'. This distinguishes it from list_orders (which fetches many orders) and other order-related tools like create_order or cancel_order.

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 phrase 'one order' implies this is the tool to use when a single specific order is needed, contrasting with list_orders for multiple orders. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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