orders_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a get (read-only) and enumerates the payload components (lines, addresses, payments, timeline), but it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or any other side effects. This is partial transparency.

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, well-structured sentence with a clear verb and a colon-separated list. Every word is informative and there is no waste.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema) and the description covers the core purpose and return content. However, it lacks explicit guidance on how it relates to sibling tools like orders_timeline, which could cause confusion. It is adequate but not fully 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%, with both parameters described. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only contextualizes the overall purpose. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Obtiene') and resource ('detalle completo de una orden'), and lists concrete components (lines, addresses, payments, timeline). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like orders_list and orders_timeline by emphasizing the complete detail 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 implies when to use the tool (when full order details are needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternatives such as orders_list or orders_timeline. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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