Get FBS Order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns multiple data categories (products, buyer details, etc.), which is transparent about output. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or that it requires the posting number to exist. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, lists key return types, and contains zero waste. It is optimally concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must compensate. It enumerates all major return components (products, buyer details, delivery address, shipment deadline, analytics data, financial breakdown), providing a clear picture of what to expect. However, it omits error cases or field-level details, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 100% with a single parameter (posting_number) described as 'FBS posting number, e.g. "57308553-0009-1"'. The description adds no further semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full details of a single FBS order by posting number, listing what is returned (products, buyer details, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_fbs_orders and get_fbo_order by specifying 'FBS order' and 'single order'.

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 implies usage when you need detailed information about one specific order by providing the posting number. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for listing many orders) or mention alternatives like list_fbs_orders. The context is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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