Commerce Order Get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it adds almost nothing: it doesn't say whether the read requires authentication or specific order-view permissions, whether a missing ID errors or returns empty, or what the optional 'include' parameter does to the response.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the key constraint (single, by ID) front-loaded. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. For a two-parameter getter with no annotations, though, the description is thin: it says nothing about the 'include' parameter, permissions, or error behavior, leaving the agent with only the schema to work from.

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 0% across both parameters. The phrase 'by ID' implicitly covers order_id, but the 'include' string parameter (default empty) is left completely unexplained in both schema and description, which is a meaningful gap for a getter that likely supports relationship inclusion.

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 and resource ('Get a single commerce order') and constrains it to lookup by ID, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like commerce_order_list, commerce_order_create, or commerce_order_update beyond the implied read/single semantics.

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 no guidance on when to use this versus commerce_order_list (e.g. single lookup vs listing/filtering) or any prerequisite such as the order existing or required permissions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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