get_customer_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only behavior via 'Get' but does not explicitly state non-mutating or any error/edge-case behavior. It does describe the return structure (list with fields), which adds some value, but lacks disclosure on empty results, pagination, or access requirements. For a simple read operation this is adequate but not rich.

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 primary action and example. The second sentence adds return details and a redirect to search_customers. Zero waste, every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what it returns (list with order fields) and provides an alternative when prerequisites are unmet. There is no missing information an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and the schema itself documents customer_id with the same example and description. The description adds the qualifier 'exact' and repeats the example, but this is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gets the full order history for a single customer by exact customer ID, with the example 'CUST-0007'. It also specifies return fields, making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with every sibling, but it does name search_customers as an alternative, which helps 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?

The description provides clear usage context: use when you have the exact customer ID, and if you only have a name/email, use search_customers first. This explicitly sets a condition for when not to use this tool. However, it does not mention other siblings like get_customer_details or get_customer_stats, so coverage of alternatives is incomplete but sufficient for basic routing.

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