List Orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it lists 'working orders' by default, but omits details on pagination (top, skip) and the effect of the status parameter. Behavioral disclosure is adequate but not complete.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it slightly too terse given the six parameters.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description only covers the basic purpose. Missing information on pagination, field filtering, status options, and return format makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides minimal parameter guidance. It implicitly references clientKey and accountKey but does not explain status, fieldGroups, top, or skip. The parameter names are self-descriptive only to a limited extent.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'working orders', and specifies scope: 'for the authenticated client or a specific account.' This distinguishes it from related tools like saxo_get_order (single order) and saxo_cancel_order (mutation).

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 on when to choose this tool over siblings such as saxo_get_order, saxo_list_closed_positions, or saxo_list_net_positions. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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