message_getOrder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only implies a safe read operation via the verb 'Get' but does not state return format, side effects, error cases, or any prerequisites like session requirements. This is inadequate for an operation that likely depends on message/chat context.

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, concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and the resource. However, it is extremely under-specified, which slightly reduces efficiency because the reader still has to consult the schema for basic understanding.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, and the description fails to explain what 'order details' means, how the parameters interact, or what the return value looks like. Given the sibling tool message_getInfo provides more context, this definition leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema descriptions fully cover all three parameters (chatId, messageId, sessionId) with examples and semantic explanations, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema compensates completely, making this score 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 states a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('order details'), and the name message_getOrder reinforces this. It distinguishes from sibling tools like message_getInfo or message_getPayment, as no other sibling targets 'order'. However, 'order details' is somewhat ambiguous without further context about WhatsApp's order feature, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as message_getInfo or message_getPayment. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where 'order details' would be relevant. This is a clear gap given the large sibling list.

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