注文照会

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is used for identity confirmation and lists the output fields, but does not describe error behavior, permissions, or any side effects. For a lookup tool, this is moderate but not rich disclosure.

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 description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, input, and output. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers input, output fields, and usage context. It lacks error/edge-case details, but the field list is provided, making it reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 sole parameter user_id is fully described in the schema as an email address, and the description repeats this without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not compensate or enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a user's order list (product name, quantity, order date, billing status) based on user ID (email). It uses a specific verb (取得する) and resource (注文一覧), and is distinct from sibling tools like check_return_eligibility or get_billing_status.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool as the first step in handling an inquiry, also serving to confirm user identity. This provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use alternatives or name them as exclusions.

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