list_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose read-only behavior and pagination, which is valuable. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether user_ns is required, what the full unscoped list returns, and what pagination metadata or response shape looks like.

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?

One tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the core verb, resource, and the most important qualifiers: paginated, user_ns scoping, and read-only. Every phrase 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?

For a simple list tool with three optional parameters, the description covers invocation, scoping, and safety. The lack of an output schema means return details are only implied, and it doesn't mention behavior when user_ns is omitted, but these are relatively minor gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'paginated' gives meaning to page and limit, and user_ns is explicitly tied to find_contact and scoping. The schema already provides defaults, so the remaining mechanics are adequately covered.

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 identifies the operation (list), the resource (shop orders), and key behaviors (paginated, optional scoping by user_ns). It distinguishes well from the sibling get_order, which retrieves a single 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 explicit context on when to pass user_ns — from find_contact — to scope orders to one contact, and the pagination note implies a listing use case. It does not explicitly contrast with get_order or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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