list_orders

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral insights such as 'newest first' ordering, filter capabilities, and pagination semantics, but does not disclose return format or any additional side effects. This is adequate but not rich, matching a mid-tier score.

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 only two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word adds value, and it clearly communicates the tool's key features without redundancy.

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 five-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description captures the essential input behaviors—ordering, filtering, and pagination—in a compact form. It implies the output is a list of orders, but it doesn't detail response structure or restrictions beyond what's in the schema, leaving some room for completion.

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 only 40% (from and lastKey have descriptions), but the tool description explains the roles of all parameters through the phrases 'filter by status and/or ISO date range' and 'paginate with limit/lastKey.' This compensates for the low coverage by conveying how the parameters work together, though it doesn't define each parameter individually.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'orders', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_products and list_subscribers. It also specifies that orders are returned newest first, which adds purpose detail.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to list orders with optional filtering by status or ISO date range, and with pagination. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but its scope is evident from the sibling tool names.

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