get_broker_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the ordering (newest first) but does not explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation, mention any side effects, or describe pagination behavior. For a getter, the absence of explicit read-only disclosure or note about absence of side effects is a notable gap.

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 and front-loaded. The first line states the core purpose and ordering, followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers essential usage aspects: what is returned (orders), ordering, and parameter meanings. It lacks explicit return-structure details, but the output schema compensates. No critical gaps remain.

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 description fully explains both parameters, going beyond the schema: status lists accepted values ('open', 'closed' or 'all') and limit defines a maximum count. This is essential given 0% schema description coverage.

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 identifies the resource (orders at the paper broker) and provides an ordering (newest first), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_broker_positions. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', relying on the tool name to convey the action.

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 context is implied by the tool name and description (retrieving broker orders), but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_broker_positions or place_order. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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