Orders list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds useful context about pagination via cursor, the optional status filter, and the buyer-side scoping. It doesn't describe the return structure, but given the annotations, this is acceptable.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the core action and scope; the second provides the primary use case. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy, every word 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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, who it lists for, pagination, filtering, and its role in a workflow. It doesn't detail the response fields, but that is not strictly required for a list operation when the annotations already cover safety. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema already documents each parameter thoroughly (e.g., cursor origin, status enum, page_size bounds). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the filter is optional and the pagination approach. This meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 states the tool lists orders placed by the authenticated principal (buyer-side), distinguishing it from seller-side tools like seller_list_orders. It also mentions pagination and the status filter, and explicitly positions it as a precursor to orders_get. The verb and resource are specific and 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to find an order id before calling orders_get.' It also clarifies the buyer-side scope, implicitly contrasting with seller_list_orders. This is direct and actionable, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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