TRON infrastructure for AI agents.

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only discloses that authentication is required ('Auth required'), but omits critical behavioral traits: whether the operation is read-only (implied but not confirmed), pagination behavior, the time window defining 'recent', rate limits, or the structure of returned order objects.

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 appropriately concise with two short sentences and no redundant content. It is front-loaded with the primary action. However, 'Auth required' is telegraphic rather than smoothly integrated (e.g., 'Requires authentication'), slightly detracting from the flow.

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 tool's low complexity (two primitive parameters, no output schema), the description provides minimum viable coverage by stating the core operation and authentication requirement. However, it lacks completeness regarding return value structure, the definition of 'recent', and the presence of the 'limit' parameter.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions the 'optional status filter' which adds context about the 'status' parameter's purpose and optionality, but completely omits any reference to the 'limit' parameter, relying entirely on the schema for that parameter's documentation.

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 provides a specific verb ('List') and resource ('orders') plus a scope constraint ('recent'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_order' (singular), though 'recent' and plural 'orders' imply a multiple-record retrieval pattern versus single-record retrieval.

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 fails to provide explicit usage guidelines, when-not-to-use conditions, or alternative tool recommendations. It does not clarify when to use 'list_orders' versus 'get_order' for specific order lookups, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the terse 'Auth required'.

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