fleetsync_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'last 25 entries' limit, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe potential edge cases (e.g., invalid order number). The description gives basic transparency but lacks explicit safety or error behavior.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core function and then a brief use case. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 output schema, the description should explain what the response looks like, but it only says 'history' without detailing the structure or contents of each entry. It includes the 'last 25 entries' limitation and a use case, but for a tool with no output schema, the return format is left vague. This is a noticeable 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?

The schema description for the parameter 'number' already states 'Order number to get history (last 25 entries),' which is nearly identical to the tool description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Get the history of a FleetSync order (last 25 entries).' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('history of a FleetSync order'), and mentions the scope ('last 25 entries'). It also provides a use case ('tracking changes and re-deliveries'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like fleetsync_get_order or fleetsync_orders_status_changes.

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 phrase 'Useful for tracking changes and re-deliveries' gives clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'For status changes only, use fleetsync_orders_status_changes.' This is clear context without explicit exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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