loan_get_orders

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context by disclosing what data is returned (LTV, APR, interest, fiat values), the private access flag, and the optional single-order filter. It does not mention pagination details, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are stated first, followed by concrete use cases and the optional filter, so the description is easy to scan and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with rich annotations and fully documented optional parameters, the description covers what the tool returns and why it should be used. Minor gaps like pagination result shape are inferable from the schema and don't significantly hinder an agent from selecting and invoking the 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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has clear documentation. The description only restates the order_id filter and does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('loan orders') and the action ('Get all'), and adds useful distinguishing content (LTV, APR, interest, fiat values). This differentiates it well from sibling tools like loan_get_movements, loan_get_simulation, and loan_get_config.

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 description gives helpful context for when to use the tool: monitoring loan health, tracking payments, and calculating costs. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools or state when to prefer e.g. loan_get_movements or loan_get_simulation, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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