get_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data-freshness dependency (local DB must be populated by sync_orders) and enumerates returned fields, but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, ordering, or failure modes when the DB is unpopulated.

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 the action and immediately followed by the prerequisite and return shape. No filler or 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?

No output schema exists, so listing the returned fields (item name, order date, tracking number, order status) is genuinely necessary and present. The prerequisite on sync_orders is covered; only edge cases like empty results or auth needs are unaddressed.

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 83%, so the schema already documents limit, search, accounts, start_date, end_date, and hide_cancelled. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond noting results are 'per item', so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read orders from the local database') and adds the source of truth, which distinguishes it from sync_orders by implying reads are local rather than remote. It does not explicitly contrast with list_accounts or the other siblings, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition — 'run sync_orders first to populate' — which is real routing guidance for an agent that might otherwise call this against an empty store. It offers no exclusions or explicit alternatives, but the prerequisite is the main contextual need here.

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