get_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action and scope; it does not mention read-only nature, error handling for disconnected brokers, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description is too minimal to provide complete context. It lacks guidance on usage, behavioral traits, and parameter semantics. The description is enough to convey the basic purpose but not the necessary surrounding context for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema has one parameter 'broker' with enum values but zero description coverage. The tool description does not explain how this parameter affects the result, such as filtering by specific broker or defaulting to 'all'. The phrase 'connected brokers' loosely relates to the parameter but adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema's enum values.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' with a clear resource 'today's order history' and scope 'from connected brokers'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_holdings and get_positions by focusing on order history.

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 description implies usage context (requires connected brokers, fetches orders for today) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_positions or get_portfolio_summary. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present.

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