get_order_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only implies read-only access through the verb 'Get'. It says nothing about permissions, whether history is paginated or time-ordered, how far back it goes, or what happens if the order ID is invalid.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing detail noted in other dimensions.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves key questions open: what the returned history entries contain, their ordering, and whether pagination applies. For a history-retrieval tool this is a substantial gap.

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% for the single required parameter, and the description only implies that order_id identifies 'a single order'. It adds no format, source, or validity detail that would help an agent construct or validate the ID.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get the full status history of a single order') and implicitly separates this tool from list-style siblings like get_orders and get_order_trades by emphasizing one order's status timeline. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it when you want the status progression of a specific order. There is no guidance on when to prefer it over get_orders or get_order_trades, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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