Get User Orders

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description only states it fetches orders. It omits behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, read-only nature, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently front-loaded, but could include more context without becoming verbose.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, missing details like response format or pagination limit its utility. Could be improved with brief behavioral info.

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 100% (parameter 'userId' described as 'User ID, such as usr_001'). The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema example. Baseline 3 applies as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Fetch all orders') and the specific resource ('for a single user'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_orders' by limiting scope to one user. However, it does not explicitly frame this in contrast to alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when or when not to use this tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclude cases like needing orders for multiple users. The implication is weak and relies on sibling names.

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