get_purchase_order_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the underlying API method (GET) and endpoint, which implies a read-only operation, and lists the return structure (id, status, created_at, total, items with key fields). This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it stops short of detailing auth requirements or error cases.

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?

Description is succinct, organized into labeled sections (purpose, API, return structure), and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.

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 straightforward get-detail tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, underlying API, and return structure. This is complete enough for an agent to know what the tool does and what it returns.

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% (single parameter with description '採購單 ID'). The description does not add extra detail about the parameter beyond its presence in the endpoint path. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 states '取得單一 POS 採購單的完整明細' (get complete details of a single POS purchase order) with specific content like items, quantity, and amount. The verb+resource is clear and distinguishes this from sibling list_purchase_orders which lists orders.

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 implied by the purpose: use when you need details of a single purchase order. However, no explicit when/when-not guidance is given, and the alternative list_purchase_orders is not mentioned. For a simple get-by-id tool, this is adequate but lacks differentiation.

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