rr_list_purchase_orders

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses filtering and pagination but does not mention behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, error handling, or the fact that it returns a list. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 at 12 words, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

With 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return format, default behavior (e.g., default limit, unfiltered list), or sorting. This leaves gaps for an agent invoking the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond summarizing the filtering options. Baseline 3 is appropriate; it adds marginal value.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists purchase orders and supports filtering by status, vendor, and search, as well as pagination. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like rr_get_purchase_order (single order) and other resource-specific 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 implies usage for listing with filters but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., when to use rr_get_purchase_order). No when-not or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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