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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it discloses pagination via cursors and the presence of paper trigger rows (trigger_tp/trigger_sl), which is genuinely useful context. It does not say whether it is read-only, what the default/read scope is, whether results are ordered or scoped to the authenticated account, or how cursors expire.

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 with no filler; the pagination contract and the trigger-row caveat are both front-loaded. The second sentence, while terse, adds real information rather than restating the 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?

The tool is simple (3 optional params, no nested objects, no output schema) and the description covers pagination and row types adequately. However, with zero annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks ordering, default limit, account scoping, and read-only guarantees that would matter before relying on it as an 'authoritative ledger'.

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 67%: 'before' and 'status' are documented in the schema, but 'limit' has no description and the description adds no meaning to any parameter. It repeats the cursor-pagination concept already stated for 'before' without clarifying default page size or ordering.

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 calls it an 'authoritative order ledger' and 'cursor-paginated', which implies listing orders, but it never states the verb or resource plainly — the tool name carries most of the meaning. It also distinguishes the contents (paper trigger rows as trigger_tp/trigger_sl) but does not differentiate from siblings like get_positions or list_pending_withdrawals.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no named alternative among the many list/get siblings. The only implied usage is retrieving order history via pagination.

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