Get an order

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), and the description adds real behavioral nuance on top: delivery_eta stays null until the merchant ships, merchant_contact disappears once the order is CLOSED, and some fields are only returned for the paying identity. That conditional-availability information is not something the annotations or a static output schema would convey.

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 final imperative sentence is front-loaded-ish and valuable, but the bulk of the description is a field enumeration that largely duplicates what a structured output schema already exposes, which is not the best use of the word budget. It is dense but not wasteful in style; the redundancy is the issue, not length.

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 fields needn't be listed at all, yet that is most of what the description does. The genuinely useful gaps — how to obtain order_id, whether authentication as the payer is required, and error behavior for a missing or foreign order — are left unaddressed.

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% for the single required parameter order_id, so the description is the only place semantics could be supplied. It never says what form an order_id takes, where the agent obtains it, or what happens with an unknown id; the surrounding prose only implies 'the order' generically.

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 title and description establish a specific verb+resource ('get' an order) and the description enumerates the state it returns (state, events, tracking, delivery_eta, refund_policy, tx_hash). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as shop.merchant.orders_list or shop.order.quote, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Poll this after a payment_pending answer' gives one concrete trigger, which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when NOT to use it, no named alternative (e.g., the merchant-side order list), and no guidance on how often to poll or when to stop polling.

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