get_order_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: authentication is required, and pagination is server-side via search_listing, reachable by iterating page_num up to pagination.total_pages. Return format itself is not described, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then auth, then pagination mechanics in a compact form. The Args block restates defaults already present in the schema, a minor redundancy, but overall well sized and organized.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, and the pagination contract needed to retrieve all results. Little is missing; returned field contents are properly left to the output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it clarifies page_size as orders-per-page and page_num as 1-based, plus the loop semantics for reaching full history. Only the defaults are repeated from the schema, so this adds real meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get past order history'), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_order (single order) or track_order. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name and the pagination instructions, and authentication requirement is stated. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with get_order / track_order for an agent choosing between them.

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