List your orders

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys one behavioral fact — the default role is buyer — but says nothing about read-only safety, authentication, pagination, result ordering, or what an empty result looks like. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves significant 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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the default behavior is stated up front alongside the alternative. Nothing is repeated from the schema beyond what is needed to give the enum meaning.

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 one-parameter, zero-required, read-style listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the parameter well but omits result shape, volume, and pagination expectations. It is adequate to invoke the tool correctly but thin on what to expect back.

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 0% and the single parameter is an undescribed enum, so the description is the only source of meaning — and it does define both enum values and the default. However, it adds no further detail such as what happens with an invalid value or whether omitting role is equivalent to passing 'buyer'.

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 identifies the resource (orders) and the two scopes it returns — orders placed as a buyer versus orders received as a provider — which is more precise than the bare title 'List your orders'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling agoreum_get_order (single order) or agoreum_list_open_requests, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

It tells the agent which role value yields which result set and that buyer is the default, which implies usage for the two cases. It gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, and never mentions that agoreum_get_order is the tool for fetching a single specific order.

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