Order history and savings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely useful trait, 'Free', and implies the operation is a read of existing history. But it says nothing about pagination, ordering, authentication, or whether the totals are cumulative across installs, so most behavioral context is missing.

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?

A single compact sentence plus a one-word 'Free.' fragment; nothing is padded. It is dense with domain jargon (IMD, saver) but front-loads the scope ('Everything bought through this install') effectively.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does at least sketch the return contents, partially compensating for the absent output schema. It still omits limit/pagination behavior and any differentiation from its singular sibling, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 single parameter (limit) has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned anywhere in the description. The schema's default of 30 and bounds of 1-200 give structural hints, but the description adds no meaning about what limit controls or how results are paged.

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 names the resource (orders bought through this install) and enumerates what it returns: orders, states, IMD spent, and saver-prevented amounts. It reads clearly as a history/listing tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the singular sibling imd_order or from imd_find_existing, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives. The ambiguity with the closely named sibling imd_order (singular) is left entirely unresolved, which is exactly where routing guidance was needed most.

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