get_work_orders

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint, so the description carries the burden and adds genuinely useful behavior: customer names and prices are masked unless server policy permits confidential data. That is a non-obvious output trait an agent must know. It omits any note on pagination/limit behavior or result size, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core filtering/sorting purpose and no filler. The opening is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 return value structure needn't be explained, and the description covers filtering, sorting, and the data-masking caveat. The main gap is the failure to distinguish this from late_work_orders, which is the most likely selection error for an agent.

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 67%, so the schema documents most parameters including the Hebrew status enum values and ISO date formats. The description merely restates the same filter fields (status, line, product, due dates) without adding format or boundary detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

It states a specific resource (work orders) plus the filter dimensions (status, line, product, due-date range) and the sort order, which is more than a bare tautology. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling late_work_orders, which appears to be a closely related view an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite a directly competing sibling (late_work_orders) existing. The filtering capabilities imply a use case but the agent is left to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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