list_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals non-obvious facts: there is no order total; amount_due_at_pickup is per entry; paid null means unknown, not unpaid; each entry is a delivery group that can contain multiple order_numbers; and giving a date searches the archive and stops paginating. This goes far beyond a generic list description.

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 dense but each sentence carries a distinct, useful fact: output composition, monetary semantics, delivery-group modeling, archive/date behavior, and downstream routing. It is longer than strictly necessary but not padded; the 'cheaper' explanation is slightly extra but still relevant to usage.

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 list operation with four parameters and no annotations, the description covers output structure, tricky field semantics, grouping behavior, archive/date behavior, and how to connect to related tools. The only minor gaps are date inclusivity and authentication requirements, but the output schema exists and shared login context is implied by the sibling tools.

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 50%, with limit and scope documented but date parameters only minimally. The description adds meaningful date behavior ('Giving either date searches the archive and stops paginating once past the window') and clarifies output semantics tied to price/paid. It does not elaborate on limit, but the schema already documents that parameter, so the description compensates reasonably for the coverage gap.

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 specifies the resource (orders) and the returned fields (status, state, pickup point, delivery slot/ETA, items), and clearly flags the absence of an order total. It lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'lists', but the tool name and content make the purpose unmistakable, and it distinguishes itself from downstream tools like order_products(), cancel_order(), and pay_order().

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 concrete follow-up guidance: 'Pass an entry's order number or detail_link on to order_products(), cancel_order() or pay_order().' It also explains when date parameters trigger archive search and stop pagination, which helps an agent choose efficient usage. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus a sibling, so it falls short of a full 5.

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