get_orders

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only.' largely repeats structured data. The description does add value by disclosing the return shape (legs, fills, average fill price), which the annotations do not cover, but says nothing about pagination or how max_results interacts with the filters.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the resource and what it returns. Efficient and easy to scan, with only minor redundancy in the 'Read-only.' tail that duplicates the annotation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is the absence of any when-to-use routing against sibling tools, but for a zero-required-parameter read tool this is largely complete.

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 75%, with days, status, and account well documented in the schema; only max_results lacks a description. The description's '(open, filled, cancelled...)' loosely gestures at the status filter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Recent orders') and resource with descriptive content (legs, fills, average fill price), going beyond a bare name restatement. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_transactions and get_positions, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_transactions or get_positions, nor any mention of prerequisites such as retrieving an account first. Usage context (recent orders, lookback window) must be inferred from the parameter defaults.

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