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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned order statuses and that results are paginated, which is real behavioral content. It says nothing about ordering, page size limits, auth/permission requirements, or how the cursor behaves, so the transparency is partial.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the scoping details in parentheses. No filler, nothing wasted.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage leave the description as the only source of information, and it addresses just the result statuses and the existence of pagination. Time-range semantics, market/subaccount filtering, and ordering are all missing for a 6-parameter list tool.

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 0% across 6 parameters, and the description only gestures at two of them indirectly ('for the user' → user_id, 'paginated' → cursor). The meaning of from_ms/to_ms, market_id, and subaccount_id is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 resource (historical orders) with an explicit content scope: filled, cancelled, and expired. The word 'Historical' contrasts implicitly with the sibling pax.orders_open, but the description never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to the agent's inference from tool names.

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 parenthetical status list and 'Historical' imply the situation in which to call this rather than pax.orders_open, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no alternative named. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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