square_search_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not specify whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has pagination, or any side effects. The description only describes the search operation without safety or performance notes.

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 concise: a one-sentence overview followed by a clearly formatted Args list. Every line is informative, no redundant or vague phrases. The structure is easily scannable for both intent and parameter details.

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?

The description adequately covers the search filters and parameter semantics, and since an output schema exists, return values do not need elaboration. However, it lacks mention of pagination behavior (e.g., cursor or next page) and whether multiple state values are supported, which are common expectations for a search tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the tool's Args section adds crucial meaning: location_id is identified as a Square location ID, state lists valid values (OPEN, COMPLETED, CANCELED), date parameters specify RFC 3339 format, and limit indicates maximum results. This significantly compensates for the bare schema, though it could clarify required filters.

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 searches Square orders by location, status, or date range, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like square_get_order (single order retrieval) and square_list_payments (different resource) by emphasizing filtering capabilities.

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 implies usage for filtering orders but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like square_get_order. It lacks guidance on exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.

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