get_order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the 'shaped' output and the effect of detail:'full' (adding items, delivery, payments, comments). However, it does not disclose error behavior or the 'raw' debug option (though the schema covers it). Overall, it adds modest value beyond annotations.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is concise and well-structured.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: single order retrieval, lookup fields, and the summary/full detail modes. The annotations confirm read-only behavior, and the schema documents all parameters. Minor omissions like explicit error handling or mention of the raw flag are not critical given the schema, so it is nearly 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 all parameters (by, id, raw, detail) already well-documented. The description's mention of 'shaped order' and detail behavior aligns with but does not significantly extend the schema. The 'raw' parameter is absent from the description but is explained in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and resource 'single order', and clearly identifies the lookup fields (RetailCRM id or externalId). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_orders by explicitly saying 'single order', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool: when you need a single order by ID/externalId. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as 'use list_orders to retrieve multiple orders'. This is a minor gap, so it earns a 4.

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