qt_get_orders

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the operation is read-only and that filters are optional, which are useful traits. However, it does not mention authentication needs, date format expectations, default behavior, or what happens when optional parameters are omitted.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and remains free of filler. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices some useful detail for brevity.

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?

Given four unannotated parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It does not explain parameter formats, required vs optional behavior, output shape, or error cases, leaving significant gaps for an agent relying solely on this definition.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by saying filters are by 'state and date range', which maps to stateFilter, startTime, and endTime; 'for an account' implies accountId. However, it does not clarify date formats, enum semantics, or default values.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'orders' and the action as 'Get', with the scope being 'for an account'. It distinguishes its subject matter from sibling tools like qt_get_positions and qt_get_balances by naming the specific resource type, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings. It implies the tool is for retrieving orders and optionally filtering, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.

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