list_purchase_orders

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no default page size, no statement that results are paginated or capped (count max 100 lives only in the schema), no mention of the read-only nature, and no note on sort/filter interaction. For a 15-parameter list endpoint this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness comes partly from under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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?

Fifteen parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description is the only place to explain paging behavior, default ordering, and what 'include' returns. None of that is present, so an agent must reverse-engineer expected behavior from the schema alone.

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% with all 15 parameters documented inline, including the status enum values, sort examples, and include paths. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('search and list') plus resource ('purchase orders'), which clearly separates it from get_purchase_order, upsert_purchase_order, and receive_purchase_order in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as the non-list alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

The phrase 'with optional filtering' hints that all filters are discretionary, but there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_purchase_order (single fetch) or list_sales_orders (other resource). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing.

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