get_package_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication requirement and return format, but doesn't cover important aspects like pagination behavior, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a 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?

The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve clear purposes: stating the tool's function and describing the return value. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by combining related information more tightly.

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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and no parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and authentication context. However, for a tool with zero annotation coverage, it should provide more behavioral context about limitations, side effects, or usage patterns to be truly 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description correctly doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('package orders'), and specifies the scope ('for the authenticated user'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_orders_by_date_range', but the scope limitation provides some implicit 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_orders_by_date_range' or 'get_order_details'. It mentions the authenticated user scope but doesn't explain when this limitation matters or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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