wc_get_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no permissions/auth requirements, no error semantics for a missing order, no mention of the read-only nature beyond the verb 'Get'. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though brevity here borders on underspecification rather than tight writing.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is minimally viable but omits return-shape hints and failure behavior. Acceptable but with clear gaps given no annotations exist to cover them.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only labels the field 'id' as an integer. The description's 'by ID' confirms the parameter is an order identifier, adding marginal meaning, but it does not specify format, whether it accepts order number vs internal ID, or valid ranges. A 3 reflects the minimal compensation provided.

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+resource ('Get WooCommerce order') and scopes it to ID lookup, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling wc_orders_search. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs wc_orders_search or what to do if the ID is unknown/invalid. The 'by ID' phrasing hints at single-record lookup, but usage conditions are left to inference.

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