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

No annotations are provided, but the description explicitly discloses a non-obvious behavior: order status is reconciled asynchronously and should be treated as advisory until fill. It also signals a read-only operation via 'List.' While it omits details like pagination or return shape, the key operational caveat is present.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a useful caveat in the second sentence. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool, the description provides the key facts: what is listed, from whose perspective, and a caveat about status reliability. It does not cover pagination or return shape, but no output schema exists and these are less critical given the straightforward 'List orders' semantics.

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 description clarifies that `offerer` is the address that created the orders, adding role semantics beyond the schema's regex. It does not explicitly describe the `status` parameter or that it acts as a filter, though the enum values in the schema make its meaning inferable. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for the second parameter.

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 names a concrete action ('List') and a clear resource ('orders created by an address'), with a parenthetical enumerating the order types ('listings, auctions, offers'). This makes the tool's scope distinct from sibling tools like get_listings or get_recent_trades without needing to open their schemas.

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 the main use case (fetch an address's orders) and warns about status freshness, but it never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool. An agent must infer the boundary vs get_listings or get_owned_positions, so the guidance is only implicit.

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