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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context that the service is free (不收费) and that results are recent, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 a single compact sentence plus a short no-charge note. It is front-loaded with the main action and scope, and every part contributes useful information.

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 listing tool, the description covers purpose, filtering, and cost context. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it could say more about return contents or ordering, though the core call parameters are well covered by the schema.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents limit, status, and platform. The description mentions status and platform filtering but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides; this meets the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource: it lists recent invocation orders, with status/platform filtering. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this listing tool from the sibling get_order tool.

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 clear use context: reconciliation (对账), and it mentions the available filtering approach. It does not explicitly say when to use get_order instead or when not to use this tool, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to act on.

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