acedatacloud_get_order_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention any rate limits or authentication requirements, or clarify the data scope beyond the word 'caller'. The name implies a read operation, but the description adds little beyond that.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple summary operation, with no wasted words.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description is still incomplete contextually. It omits usage guidance, does not clarify what dimensions the counts are broken down by, and leaves the phrase 'finished spend summary' ambiguous—whether it summarizes only finished orders or includes a breakdown. No alternatives are mentioned.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters; it only mentions 'order counts' and 'finished spend', which is not tied to the specific state, pay_way, or date filters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a clear resource ('caller order counts and finished spend summary'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_orders or get_order, which deal with individual order details rather than aggregated summaries.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for summary/aggregate needs instead of detailed order lists, nor does it reference sibling tools like list_orders or get_order.

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