get_all_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that archived and cancelled orders are included, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination behavior, potential large result sets, or that it is a read-only operation. The schema hints at pagination via 'after' and 'first' parameters, but the description itself is sparse on behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without redundancy. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 read-only list tool with 5 optional parameters and a thorough schema, the description provides the key differentiator (archived/cancelled inclusion) and is otherwise supplemented by the schema's rich parameter documentation. It lacks an explicit note on return format or pagination, but these are inferable from the schema, making the overall package sufficient.

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 100%, with each parameter ('after', 'first', 'query', 'reverse', 'sortKey') having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so per the rubric baseline of 3 applies.

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') and identifies the resource ('all orders'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_orders' by emphasizing comprehensive data including archived and cancelled orders. This is a precise and unambiguous statement of the tool's scope.

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 provides clear context: use this when you need all orders, including archived and cancelled ones. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, but the differentiating feature is clear enough for an agent to infer when to choose this over 'get_orders'.

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