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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that only commitment hashes are returned, which is a useful scope hint, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any other behavioral trait.

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 very short and wastes no words, but it is a fragmented phrase rather than a structured sentence. It is front-loaded with the key resource but lacks a clear verb, reducing clarity despite its brevity.

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?

Given the low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally complete by indicating the returned content is limited to commitment hashes. However, without an output schema, it should more clearly explain the return format (e.g., list of strings) and confirm read-only behavior.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The schema is empty and fully self-explanatory; the description does not need to add parameter details.

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 identifies the resource as expired orders' commitment hashes, but it lacks a verb and does not explicitly state what action is performed (e.g., list, fetch). It somewhat distinguishes from siblings like own_orders by focusing on expired orders, but the purpose remains vague.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as own_orders or fills. The description implies retrieval of expired order hashes but offers no context, conditions, or exclusions.

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