orders__get_table_orders_by_id

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: a specific throttling limit (20 requests per 60 seconds) and a caching recommendation, which are not in the annotations. This goes beyond the structured data and helps the agent manage rate limits and avoid redundant calls.

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 concise, with three focused sentences: purpose, ID sourcing, and throttling advice. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds actionable value 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 tool with a nested request object and multiple parameters, the description covers the essential purpose, key ID sourcing, and rate limiting. However, it omits clarification on the required choice between orderIds and posOrderIds, and does not mention what the response contains (no output schema provided). While the schema provides some details, the description could be more complete by explicitly noting the parameter exclusivity and required organizationIds, which are critical for correct invocation.

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 mentions where to obtain orderIds and organizationIds but does not explain the meanings of other parameters (posOrderIds, sourceKeys, returnExternalDataKeys) or the mutual exclusivity between orderIds and posOrderIds. Although the schema includes descriptions for some parameters, the context signal indicates 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate more fully. It partially addresses two parameters but leaves the rest unaddressed.

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 states the resource ('table orders of organizations') and the method ('by identifiers'), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from the sibling 'orders__get_table_orders_by_table' by explicitly specifying lookup by identifiers. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'gets'), relying on the tool name to imply retrieval.

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 sourcing instructions for two key IDs (orderIds from deliveries_retrieve__get_deliveries_by_delivery_date_and_status; organizationIds from organizations__get_organizations), which helps with parameter preparation but does not clarify when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'orders__get_table_orders_by_table'. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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