sync_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does disclose meaningful behavior: only orders not already stored are fetched, plus recent orders for status/tracking updates. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens on partial failures during a large import.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the delta-fetch qualifier. 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral context. It covers the fetch scope well but omits what the sync returns (counts, errors), whether it requires prior login, and how it behaves with multiple accounts or concurrency limits.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'accounts' and 'concurrency' fully, including defaults and the max value. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 ('Import orders from Amazon into the local database'), which clearly separates it from the read-oriented sibling get_orders. It does not explicitly name the siblings, but the import-into-local-store framing makes the distinction inferable.

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 the tool is useful by describing the delta logic, but never states when an agent should choose sync_orders over get_orders or what prerequisites (e.g. an account being logged in via login_account) are needed. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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