active_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the safety profile ('Read-only'), which is the single most useful trait here, but says nothing about permissions, freshness/refresh behavior, or ordering of results.

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?

Two short lines, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the sibling disambiguation immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns conceptually, that it is non-mutating, and where the adjacent data lives. Return-value details are already covered by the output schema.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no argument syntax for the description to explain. Nothing in the text adds or detracts from parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific resource and its contents ('Currently tracked orders with status and ETA'), and explicitly disambiguates from the sibling order_history by contrasting in-progress vs. past orders. An agent can select this tool without opening any schema.

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 names the alternative (order_history) and the condition that selects it (past orders), which is exactly the routing an agent needs. It stops short of stating an explicit 'do not use this for X' rule or noting any prerequisite, so it is clear context rather than exhaustive guidance.

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