getOrders

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), such as pagination nuances, status lifecycle group mapping, and rate limit group. These traits are not captured in annotations and are crucial for agent decision-making.

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 well-structured with clear sections (introduction, status values, pagination, rate limits). Every sentence adds value; no fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values. However, it covers input behavior comprehensively, including edge cases (e.g., limit ignored in OPEN). The agent can infer the response shape from typical list endpoints. Slightly incomplete but strong overall.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning by explaining how status values map to individual order statuses and how pagination parameters behave differently for OPEN vs CLOSED. This goes beyond the schema's syntactic description.

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 '주문 목록 조회' (order list inquiry) with explicit filtering by status and symbol. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getOrder (single order) and createOrder by focusing on listing, making the purpose precise and unambiguous.

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 detailed context on when to use OPEN vs CLOSED status, including pagination behavior differences. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool versus alternatives, the usage context is clear and sufficient for an AI agent to decide correctly.

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