orders_closed

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

Describes a read-only operation with no destructive behavior. However, no annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are minimal for a read endpoint but still relevant.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. However, it is too brief for a tool with 6 parameters; a bit more detail could be added without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use parameters or what the return value looks like, leaving the agent under-informed.

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?

No explanation of the 6 parameters despite 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention any parameter, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions for all parameters.

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?

Clearly states the action (Read closed orders) and the resource (for an account). The phrase 'if supported by Toss API' adds a necessary condition. Distinguishes from siblings like orders_open.

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?

Implies that this tool is for closed orders, and the sibling orders_open is for open orders, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of others. The 'if supported' is a prerequisite but not usage guidance.

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