Bestellungen (Receipts) abrufen

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses important behavioral constraints: a maximum date range of 366 days, pagination limits, and a significant privacy redaction (buyer name, address, contact data are not returned). It also enumerates the fields that are returned (status, country, sums, timestamps), ensuring the agent knows exactly what to expect.

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 two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and the key constraints and data limitations clearly stated in the second sentence. It is compact, information-dense, and free of filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, date range, pagination, and output scope (including what is not returned), which is robust for a read tool with no output schema. It lacks explicit guidance on offset-based pagination mechanics or edge cases (e.g., no results), but these are reasonably inferable and do not significantly hinder use.

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 50%, and the description adds context by mentioning the optional time period and pagination, but it does not provide detailed explanations for individual parameters beyond what the schema already states. The names and defaults are self-explanatory, so the description offers marginal additional value.

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 tool reads shop orders ('Bestellungen des Shops') and specifically identifies Etsy's term 'Receipts', distinguishing it from transaction-level tools. It also describes scope (optional time period, pagination) and the data returned, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use this tool (to retrieve order summaries) and notes a key exclusion (buyer personal data is not returned), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as etsy_get_receipt_transactions for transaction-level data. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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