Search orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose read-only behavior and the exclusion of general management. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, sorting, or any other behavioral details, leaving the agent with only a minimal safety profile.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary function and followed by a relevant safety note. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clean.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally specify return values. 'Find candidate orders' implies a list of matching orders, but the response structure is not stated. This minor gap is acceptable for a simple search tool, making it mostly complete.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It states the parameters are optional filters by status and/or customer id, which adds meaning. It does not elaborate on enum semantics beyond the schema values, but for a simple search this is adequate.

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 states the tool 'Find candidate orders to investigate', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from general order management and, combined with sibling names, implies a distinct investigative search function.

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 conveys clear usage context: it is for finding candidate orders to investigate, with optional filters. It explicitly states it is read-only and not for general management, but it does not name sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance relative to them.

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