order_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does state "Read-only" plus the pagination contract (take last_order_id from the previous result and pass it back to fetch the next page). It omits max limit bounds, sort order, and any auth/rate-limit context, so it is good but not complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then read-only status, then pagination mechanics in two short sentences. Minor redundancy in "pass it as last_order_id" restating the same parameter name, but nothing wasteful overall.

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 the listed return fields are a harmless bonus rather than a necessity, and the pagination contract is the key missing piece an agent would otherwise lack. The only real gap is the unexplained limit parameter for a simple 2-param read tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains last_order_id well as a pagination cursor (meaning the schema's bare title does not convey), but limit is never mentioned, leaving one of two parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 verb and resource ("Get list of past orders"), and the word "past" implicitly contrasts with the sibling active_orders. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so it falls short of the 5-level sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase "past orders"; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over active_orders or get_order, and no exclusions. The pagination instruction is helpful but is a mechanics note rather than selection guidance.

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