order_statusLook up the user's recent orders (or one by number) and their fulfilment status. Args: number?, limit? (default 5).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max orders to return (default 5, max 20). | |
| number | No | Exact order number to look up; omit for the most recent orders. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Present when the account has no email on file. | |
| orders | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent; description adds that it returns fulfilment status and default limit, enhancing understanding without contradiction.
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?
Single sentence plus argument list, no fluff, all content 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?
Adequate for a 2-param tool with output schema; mentions fulfilment status and default limit, though could note that it is safe/read-only (already in annotations).
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% with descriptions for both parameters. Description restates limit default and number optionality but adds no new meaning beyond schema.
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?
Clearly states verb 'look up' and resource 'user's recent orders' with 'fulfilment status'. Distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with cart, promo, designs, etc.
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?
Implies usage for checking order status but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like get_order_preview.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct; slight overlap exists between cart_update and set_cart_quantity (both modify cart lines), and between remove_promo and cart_remove (different domains). Other groups (studio, designer) are well-separated.
Consistent use of verb_noun pattern for most tools, with noun prefixes (designer_, studio_) grouping related tools. No mixed conventions or obscure abbreviations.
31 tools is high for a single server, covering shopping, studio, and designer domains. Some tools like cart_update and set_cart_quantity seem redundant, pushing count beyond optimal.
Core workflows (search, cart, checkout, generation, designer submission) are covered. Minor gaps: no edit/delete for designs or orders, and no tool to manage saved addresses beyond viewing.