list_standing_orders

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: it discloses that the tool is free of token charges and explains the meaning of 'quiet_checks'. This is good but does not cover potential rate limits or ordering details, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds value. It neither wastes words nor omits essential details, making it an exemplary model of concise, structured documentation.

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 that the tool has no parameters, has an output schema, and is simple read-only listing, the description fully covers what it does, what fields are returned, how to interpret a key metric, and the cost behavior. There are no significant gaps, so a 5 is justified.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage by default). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters; it also explains the output fields, which is sufficient.

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 identifies the tool as listing standing orders on a key, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('standing orders'). It lists the exact fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_monitored_areas' and 'create_standing_order'.

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 context on what information is returned and even interprets the 'quiet_checks' field, helping an agent understand when this tool is useful for assessing standing-order effectiveness. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, such as when to use 'list_monitored_areas' instead, so it falls short of a 5.

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