printful_list_orders

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by mentioning pagination ('Returns paginated list') and the content of returns ('with status, costs, and item counts'), which aren't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, keeping the score at a baseline level.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context about pagination and return content. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and accurately.

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 the tool's low complexity (a read-only list operation), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, pagination, and key return fields. The main gap is the lack of usage guidelines compared to siblings, but overall, it provides sufficient context for effective tool selection and 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 input schema has 100% description coverage (each parameter is well-documented with titles, descriptions, and constraints like limits and enums), so the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'format' parameter's impact on output or typical 'limit' values. It compensates slightly by implying pagination through 'Returns paginated list,' but this is minimal.

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: 'List all orders from the store.' This is a specific verb ('List') and resource ('orders'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'printful_get_order' (which retrieves a single order) or 'printful_confirm_order' (which modifies orders), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'printful_get_order' for retrieving a specific order or 'printful_confirm_order' for order modifications. There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing an active store, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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