List a customer's orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: rows come back newest-first and money values are integer cents with a worked example, which prevents misreading 12999 as dollars. It stops short of stating pagination or result-size limits despite saying 'all their orders'.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The payload summary comes first and the unit convention second, so the agent gets the most decision-relevant information up front.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the description fills the remaining gaps that matter most: ordering and money units. Only pagination/truncation behavior for large order histories and empty-result handling are unaddressed, which are minor for a single-parameter read tool.

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 100% with a single required customer_id, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no constraints (positive integer, unknown-customer behavior) beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 states a specific resource set — a customer's profile plus all their orders — and adds the ordering ('newest first'), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_order, but the plural 'all their orders' effectively distinguishes the two.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer this over get_order for a single order or over sales_summary for aggregates. The only signal is implicit in the name and the word 'all', leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool list.

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