get_order

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

readOnlyHint already establishes the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by naming the data returned and by declaring its role as a mandatory prerequisite to issue_refund. It says nothing about behavior when the order doesn't exist or about response latency, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The content summary is front-loaded and the call-condition follows immediately, which is the right order for an agent scanning the definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the fields returned, and the prerequisite relationship to refunds is stated. Missing are failure-mode behavior (invalid or unknown order_id) and any hint that track_shipment should be consulted for carrier-level detail.

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 order_id parameter is documented with a concrete format example (NW-5001). The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, 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 and resource (get one order) and enumerates the returned content: status, items, totals, refund eligibility, shipping address. This distinguishes it from lookup_customer and track_shipment, which cover adjacent but different resources.

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?

Gives explicit when-to guidance: 'before answering any question about a specific order, and before issuing a refund,' which directly gates the sibling issue_refund. It does not address when track_shipment is the better choice for a purely shipment-status question, so a boundary case remains unaddressed.

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