get_order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the breadth of returned data (customer info, items, payment, shipping, discounts), but says nothing about authorization requirements, not-found behavior, or pagination, keeping it at a baseline.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the core action and then maps out the return contents. No filler, though the trailing 'etc.' slightly weakens the enumeration's precision.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value meaning – and it does, listing the major fields returned. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete, with the only gap being the vague 'etc.'.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'Order ID'. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, 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 ('Get') and resource ('order details') scoped by ID, and enumerates the returned sub-resources (customer, items, payment, shipping, discounts). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular/plural sibling list_orders via 'by ID', but never explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'by ID' – an agent infers it applies when an order ID is known. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to alternatives such as list_orders or count_orders_by_status.

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