order_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies a read operation ('history') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination. The minimal context is insufficient for safe agent use.

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, which is concise, but it lacks necessary detail. It is not efficiently scoped: while short, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, leaving agents with insufficient information.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parametric descriptions, the tool is severely under-documented. The description does not explain return format, error conditions, or ordering/filtering behavior, making it nearly unusable for an AI agent without prior knowledge.

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 description adds no meaning to the two parameters (date and order_key). It does not explain what order_key refers to, how date filters history, or the significance of defaults. The agent gains no extra understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 returns 'execution and status history for one order' and references orders(). It identifies the specific resource (order history) and action (retrieve history) but does not differentiate from sibling tools like price_history.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., orders, standing_orders). The phrase 'returned by orders()' hints at a prerequisite but does not explicitly state usage conditions or exclusions.

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