get_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful behavior: returns data for all accounts, is keyed by account number, and explains the authoritative order-id link. It does not discuss auth or side effects, but 'List' and the JSON-return note make the read-only nature reasonably clear.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and keeps the most important behavioral details early. The illustrative use cases are slightly expansive but earn their place by explaining why the order id matters, making the description informative without being bloated.

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?

For a one-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it states scope (all accounts), statuses returned, the return keying scheme, and the meaning of per_page. It omits trivial details like sorting and pagination limits, which are not essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It fully explains per_page: 'Orders per page. 0 (default) returns all.' This adds non-obvious behavior (0 means all) beyond the schema's type and default, giving an agent everything needed to use the only parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List orders and their status (open / filled / cancelled) for all accounts.' This clearly distinguishes it from order-mutation siblings like cancel_order and place_stock_order, and from position/balance quote tools.

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 gives concrete usage context: 'Use this to see resting GTC orders, detect dead orders, and attribute fills to a plan.' It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to recognize this as the order-listing tool.

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