list_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a useful tip about using the fields parameter to request only needed fields, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or other constraints. This is consistent with the read-only nature but adds limited extra behavioral context.

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 three short, focused sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action, the second lists supported filters, and the third gives a pragmatic tip. It is well-structured and easy to parse, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 the comprehensive input schema (100% parameter coverage) and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient for a list/filter tool. It does not explain pagination or default sorting, but those are captured in the schema. The absence of an output schema is acceptable, though a mention of pagination or default return fields would make it even more 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?

The input schema documents all 10 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly mentioning the fields parameter as a way to request only needed fields and by highlighting the main filter dimensions (status, customer, date range, search term), which reinforces the semantics of key parameters and provides practical usage advice.

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 'searches and filters orders,' using a specific verb and resource. It lists key filter dimensions (status, customer, date range, search term), making its function distinct from sibling list tools like list_order_notes and list_products. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description: use this when you need to retrieve or filter orders. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead, making the usage guidance only implicit rather than direct.

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