ls_list_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral disclosure by stating that results are paginated and pointing to meta.page for currentPage, lastPage, and total, which is outside the annotations. This is useful but does not cover rate limits or response ordering, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the essential pagination detail. Every sentence contributes; there is no filler or repetition of schema contents.

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 list tool with all parameters optional and a complete input schema, the description covers the main behavior, optional filters, and pagination response shape. It does not discuss the include parameter or default ordering, but those are documented in the schema and are not necessary for basic invocation. The absence of an output schema is partly mitigated by the pagination metadata note.

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%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description summarizes the two filters (store/user email) and pagination, but does not add new semantics beyond what the property descriptions already state. Baseline 3 applies correctly.

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 opens with the specific action 'List all orders' and scoping phrase 'optionally filtered by store or user email', making the resource and verb unambiguous. This sets it apart from single-order tools like ls_get_order and mutation tools like ls_generate_order_invoice/ls_refund_order. The scope ('all orders') is precise and leaves no room for confusion.

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 establishes a clear use case: retrieving orders at scale with optional store/email filters. It does not, however, name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so agents must infer alternatives from naming. Clear context, but no explicit exclusions.

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