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

Even with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false present, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: v4 backend coverage, chainsCovered/chainsNotCovered semantics, default status behavior, the 50-order per-chain cap, and the 'more' pagination flag. This is far beyond annotation-only transparency.

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 dense but every sentence carries distinct information: backend scope, order ordering, status behavior, per-chain limits, and intended use. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema fields.

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 adequately explains the response contract: chain coverage fields, per-chain newest-50 limit, the 'more' flag, and status filtering. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what results to expect and how to detect incomplete chains.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by recommending a specific statuses value for actionable orders and by clarifying the default behavior ('returns every status'), which helps an agent choose the right argument combination.

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 states a specific action and resource: listing a wallet's orders, newest first. It immediately disambiguates the misleading name by noting all statuses are returned by default, and it specifies the exact use case of recovering a lost orderId, which distinguishes it from singular tools like get_order_status.

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?

It gives a concrete when-to-use instruction ('Use this to recover an orderId you no longer have') and tells the agent to pass ['open','pending_signature'] for actionable orders. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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