get_shop_orders_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses timezone conversion semantics, the start_date override of create_time_ge/lt, and the single-day default for end_date, plus partial-match behavior for seller_name. However, it says nothing about pagination (next_page_token/page_size interplay), whether this is a read-only operation, the return shape, or auth needs — key gaps for a 13-param search tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the date/timezone block is clearly sectioned, which suits a 13-parameter tool. Sentences generally earn their place, though the timezone explanation is slightly repetitive. Structure is strong but not maximally tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tricky date/timezone semantics are well covered. Against that, half the parameters (pagination, sort, order_status) are unexplained and no annotations exist to carry safety or pagination behavior, leaving notable gaps for an agent to call this correctly.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains seller_name, start_date, end_date, timezone, and the create_time_* bounds with real precision (e.g., date-boundary semantics, IANA format). But update_time_ge/lt, page_size, sort_field, sort_order, order_status, and next_page_token are given no meaning anywhere, leaving roughly half the parameters undocumented.

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 opening sentence 'Search TikTok Shop orders' states a specific verb (search) and resource (TikTok Shop orders), making the tool's function immediately legible. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_order_detail_tool or search_returns_tool by name and scope. However, it never explicitly differentiates itself from those siblings or states its boundary, 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 description gives genuine selection guidance for the date parameters ('choose one' between raw timestamps and human-friendly dates) and explains the override rule. But it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_order_detail_tool or search_returns_tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is implied rather than framed.

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