Get order history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists orders, returns them 'most recent first', includes specific fields, optionally filters, and requires authentication. This covers the key behavioral traits (ordering, read-only nature implied by 'list', authentication) and adds value beyond a minimal description. It doesn't disclose rate limits or error behaviors, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and output details. Every sentence contributes: the first lists the tool's core function and return fields, the second adds an optional filter use case, and the third notes the authentication requirement. No wasted words, perfectly sized.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the exact fields returned (restaurant, date, total, payment method, status, items). It also conveys ordering, filtering, and authentication. For a list tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, this fully covers what an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 100%: both 'limit' and 'restaurant_id' have schema descriptions. The tool description adds a contextual note about restaurant_id being useful for 're-ordering the usual', but does not add meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters fully and the description's extra note is marginal.

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 ('List your previous efood orders') and the specific resource (previous orders) with details on what each entry includes (restaurant, date, total, payment method, status, items). This differentiates it from siblings like get_order_status, which focuses on a single order, and search_restaurants, which is about finding restaurants. The verb+resource is explicit and unambiguous.

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 a clear use case: 'useful for re-ordering the usual' when filtering by restaurant. This implies when the tool is appropriate, and the optional restaurant filter adds context for a specific scenario. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., for live order tracking), so it lacks an explicit exclusion, keeping it from a 5.

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