standing_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 only states visibility to the authenticated user, but omits side effects, rate limits, pagination, or return format. For a read operation, minimal transparency is insufficient given zero annotation coverage.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the key information. However, it could be slightly more descriptive without becoming verbose, e.g., adding 'Lists all' at the start. Still efficient for a simple listing tool.

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, no annotations, and zero parameters, the description adequately states what the tool returns. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools (e.g., 'orders') and does not specify if there is any filtering or ordering. For a simple listing, it is minimally complete but not sufficient for complex decisions.

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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the schema already fully covers parameters.

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 'Standing-order definitions visible to the authenticated login' clearly identifies the resource (standing-order definitions) and implies a query/retrieval operation. It distinguishes from sibling 'orders' by specifying 'standing-order', but lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'. Overall, purpose is clear with specific resource and scope.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'orders' or 'order_history'. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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