Internal Order Details

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

With readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely new behavior: required auth mode (`tronsave_login` api-key or signature mode with an internal account), the client-header alternative, an explicit prohibition on passing keys as arguments with the server-side forwarding explained, and a freshness caveat about order state changing within seconds.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then auth, then usage, then a labeled FRESHNESS clause. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and auth, usage, and staleness are all covered. Only failure behavior (e.g., wrong or missing key) is left implicit, a minor omission for a one-parameter read.

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 100% and the single `orderId` parameter is already documented with type and format in the schema, so the description only echoes the semantics ('by order ID'). Its useful contribution is the internal-account scoping, but it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's example.

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 full details for one internal-account order by order ID') and scopes it to internal-account orders, which distinguishes it from the public `tronsave_get_order`, `tronsave_list_orders`, and `tronsave_internal_order_history` siblings.

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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions: monitoring fulfillment after `tronsave_internal_order_create`, or a user asking for status on a specific order id, plus a decision rule ('re-read immediately before acting'). It stops short of explicitly excluding overlapping siblings like `tronsave_internal_order_history`, which is the only real gap.

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