Get Order Details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningfully discharge part of it by disclosing that orders exist only in this server process and vanish on restart — a non-obvious statefulness constraint that prevents misuse. It does not cover failure behavior for a stale or unknown order_id, which is the remaining 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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the provenance and lifetime constraints following. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema present (so return shape need not be described), the description covers what it reads, where the identifier comes from, and the process-scoped lifetime of the data. That is everything an agent needs to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the only parameter already documents "Order id from place_order, e.g. ORD-E2F0C262". The description repeats that provenance and example verbatim rather than adding format, validity, or error semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Read") and resource ("an order created by place_order"), so an agent can separate it from get_product_details, search, and place_order without opening a schema. It stops short of explicitly routing away from a sibling (e.g., "orders are not searchable via search"), so it is clear rather than maximally distinguishing.

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?

It gives clear conditional context: this tool is used after place_order and consumes the order_id from that response, which tells the agent where in the workflow the call belongs. It names no alternative tool or exclusion case, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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