get_order_alerts

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

The description conveys the selection criteria and implies a read-only 'identify' behavior, which is useful since no annotations are provided. It does not, however, describe what the output looks like, whether alerts are aggregated or itemized, or any limitations such as pagination or data recency, leaving meaningful transparency gaps.

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 front-loads the primary purpose and then lists the three alert categories. It contains no filler or redundant wording and remains easy to parse.

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 alert tool, the description covers the main selection categories, but the absence of an output schema means it should have explained what the tool returns (list, counts, order IDs, etc.). The relationship between lookbackDays and the alert categories is also left implicit, so an agent has to infer some behavior from parameter names and siblings.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions and defaults, and the description's references to 'N days' and 'high-value pending' map loosely to those parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Identify') and a specific resource ('orders that require immediate attention'), and elaborates with concrete alert categories (unfulfilled, refunded/voided, high-value pending). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_inventory_alerts or get_sales_summary.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to surface orders needing attention. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternative tools for related queries, so the guidance is left to inference.

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