Get all orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the rate-limit weight (Weight: 5), a genuinely useful behavioral detail, but nothing about pagination or return ordering beyond the schema's limit note.

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 leading 'Get all orders' line merely restates the name/title and duplicates the second sentence's opening, adding waste. The remaining content is tight and front-loaded, but the redundancy costs a point.

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 simple read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the essentials are present. No output schema exists, yet the description doesn't describe return shape, and time-range behavior is left entirely to the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter (symbol, limit, startTime, endTime) is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get all orders') and clarifies scope with '(open and closed) for a symbol', which usefully contrasts with the get_open_orders sibling. However it never names siblings explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 'open and closed' scope implicitly signals when this tool is preferred over open-only retrieval, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many order-related siblings.

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