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 behavioral transparency by revealing that line items and amounts are included in the response, which is useful beyond the schema. No contradiction with 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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key response detail. Every word earns its place.

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 single-order fetch with readOnlyHint=true, no output schema, and only two parameters, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what the tool does, how it selects the order, and what kind of data is returned. No additional behavioral or prerequisite context is needed at this complexity level.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates: 'by id' clarifies that the required orderId identifies the order to fetch, and 'including line items and amounts' hints at what the id maps to. However, it does not explain the locationId parameter or its defaulting behavior; the schema already covers locationId, so the net added value is moderate.

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 specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('single payment order'), and the access method ('by id'), and even previews the response contents ('including line items and amounts'). This clearly distinguishes it from list-style tools like ghl_list_orders and from invoice tools like ghl_get_invoice.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this when you need one specific payment order by its ID, not when you need multiple orders or need to search. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the 'single...by id' phrasing provides sufficient context.

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