list_order_repetitions

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds no behavioral context such as what the tool returns, whether it can return empty results, or any filtering behavior. It merely repeats the name, contributing no value beyond structured metadata.

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 two words, but this is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness. It is not front-loaded with useful information and does not earn its place—it only restates the tool's name in a less precise way.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and what a 'repetition' is in this context. It does neither. The tool appears to list repetitions for an order, but the description is far too skeletal to be considered complete.

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 100% (order_id with description 'the id of the order'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, but the schema already fully documents it. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since no additional meaning is provided.

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 'Show repetition' is a vague restatement of the tool name. It lacks a clear verb+resource combination and does not distinguish from siblings like create_order_repetition or delete_order_repetition. The name already implies 'list', so this adds no clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it lists repetitions for a given order or contrast with other repetition-related tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the parameter and sibling names.

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