get_orders

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

Annotations fully declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'live ops' context, which is consistent with read-only behavior. No contradiction; description complements annotations without repeating them.

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 sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose and usage, then a clear constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers primary purpose, usage, and a constraint. It could hint at prerequisites (e.g., broker connection) but is otherwise sufficient for a read-only tool with rich annotations.

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%—only 'status' has a description. The description does not explain the 'broker' parameter (e.g., ID or name format) beyond saying 'connected broker'. With low coverage, the description should add meaning but fails to compensate for the missing broker parameter details.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves orders (working/open/closed) from a connected broker, using specific verbs ('get', 'use for'). It distinguishes from web search, providing a specific resource and scope.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for working orders, pending orders. Do NOT use web search.' This provides clear usage context and a negative condition. However, it does not mention alternative tools for web search or related order queries, leaving some ambiguity.

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