search_mouser_order_history

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

The description adds 'authenticated deployment's' context and the filter/date-range modes, which are useful beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like result limits, pagination, or error conditions. With annotations covering safety, the added context is minimal but non-zero.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler and every word adds meaning. This is an example of excellent 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?

The tool has a nested request object, multiple date fields, and no output schema. The description provides the essential purpose but does not mention return format, pagination, or the relationship between mode and date fields. Given the moderate schema complexity, the description is barely adequate for correct invocation.

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 description says 'by filter or date range', which maps to the 'mode' property in the schema, but it does not explain the individual parameters like start_date, end_date, or the meaning of date_filter values. Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description bears more responsibility, yet it only offers a high-level hint, not enough to fully understand all parameter interactions.

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's purpose: reading Mouser order history. It specifies the resource (Mouser order history), the verb (Read), and the scope (by filter or date range). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mouser_order (single order) and search_orders (general order search).

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need Mouser order history) and mentions the two modes (filter/date range), but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when *not* to use it. Since sibling tools like search_orders exist, a more explicit comparison could be helpful, but the context is clear enough.

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