Get a single sales order

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive nature of the operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the response will include all line items, and the trade module must be active. It does not describe error behavior, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 first sentence 'Get a single sales order.' is redundant with the second sentence, which repeats the same idea with more detail. The endpoint summary and prerequisite are useful, but the duplication makes the definition less tight than it could be.

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 two-parameter read operation with strong annotations, the description provides the essential facts: resource type, ID-based lookup, inclusion of line items, and a module prerequisite. Even without an output schema, an agent has enough information to select and call this tool 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both id and administration. The description's 'by ID' aligns with the required id parameter but adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the operation explicitly: 'Get a single sales order by ID, including all line items.' It names a specific resource, retrieval method, and scope, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools such as list_sales_orders or get_sales_order_pdf.

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 gives clear context: this tool fetches one sales order by ID and includes line items. It also states a concrete prerequisite, 'Requires the trade module to be active,' which helps the agent decide whether the call is valid. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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