List Orders

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: ordering (newest first), pagination size (ten a page), and the meaning of the 'hold' status. It stops short of explaining cursor semantics or the result shape, so it adds value but not rich behavior detail.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the most important information (what is listed, in what order, at what granularity) is front-loaded before the status clarification.

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 simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema this covers the essentials, but with 0% schema description coverage the description should have explained the cursor/pagination contract and the remaining status values (pending, delivered, expired, rejected, all). As written, an agent must guess at both.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not. It explains only the 'hold' enum value out of six possible statuses and never explains what cursor is or how to advance pages, despite 'ten a page' implying the cursor is a page token.

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?

States the resource (the account's orders) plus its ordering (newest first) and page size (ten a page), which is more specific than a bare 'list orders'. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the singular sibling get_order, but the plural/scope framing makes the collection intent clear.

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?

Usage is only implied: it references confirm_payment / reject_payment as the actions for 'hold' orders, which gives a routing hint toward siblings, but there is no explicit statement of when to call list_orders versus get_order, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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