get_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves and formats orders, leaving out important behaviors such as default status (open), default limit (50), pagination, ordering (desc), and the effect of the 'nested' parameter. The schema captures these details, but the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently communicates the core action and resource, earning top marks for conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex with 11 parameters, but the description is too sparse. It does not mention that this is a list endpoint returning an array of orders, nor any high-level behaviors like default filtering or the distinction from single-order tools. The description leaves significant context unstated, making it incomplete for agent guidance.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all 11 parameters. The description merely mentions 'specified filters' without elaborating on any parameter meanings, adding no value beyond the schema. Per the calibration, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('orders'), indicating a listing operation. The phrase 'with the specified filters' clarifies that it supports filtering, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling order-related tools like get_order_by_id or get_order_by_client_id. The plural 'orders' and the presence of filter parameters make the purpose clear enough.

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. It does not mention that get_order_by_id or get_order_by_client_id should be used for fetching individual orders, nor any exclusions for combining filters. The description implies a filtering use case but offers no explicit usage context.

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