fetch_historical_order_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions 'with pagination' but does not explain how pagination works (e.g., cursor handling, limit meaning) or any side effects like rate limits or authentication requirements. The behavior remains opaque beyond the basic read operation.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks necessary details about parameters and usage context. While brevity is appreciated, the extreme lack of information makes it less useful for an AI agent.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination mechanics, the role of the 'ticker' parameter, or how this tool differs from similar tools. This inadequacy harms the agent's ability to use it correctly.

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%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. It only says 'with pagination', but the presence of 'ticker' (a stock symbol filter) is not clarified. The parameters 'cursor' and 'limit' are standard for pagination but their exact semantics are left to assumption.

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 it fetches 'historical order data' and mentions pagination. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'historical order data' are specific, but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'fetch_all_orders' or 'fetch_order' which might retrieve similar data. This leaves ambiguity about when to use this tool versus others.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as 'fetch_order' or 'fetch_all_orders'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusion criteria. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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