QueryOrderByPage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: OpenAPI interface, API Key authentication, ACL permission, rate limit, and the old path. This gives an agent useful operational expectations, though it does not detail pagination token behavior or response format.

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 functional summary is front-loaded and followed by four terse, useful bullets. Every bullet adds distinct information (auth, ACL, rate limit, legacy path) without redundant filler, though the listing style is not as elegantly minimal as a single-sentence best-case description.

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 query tool with four unannotated optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable functional overview plus operational constraints. However, it omits any guidance on parameter meaning, return shape, or how cursor pagination actually behaves, leaving gaps an agent would need to fill elsewhere.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining limit, cursor, toCoin, and fromCoin. It only vaguely signals that cursor is involved in pagination and that the tool deals with conversion history; it does not define the coin pair semantics, limit meaning, or cursor rules. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('queries') and resource ('conversion history orders') plus a distinctive aggregation scope ('asset account and OBU account data') and method ('cursor pagination'). It is clear and distinguishes from most of the large sibling set, though it never explicitly names a contrasting sibling such as ConvertHistoryQuery or QueryOrderFromOpenApi.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose statement: querying conversion history with cursor pagination. It also includes practical usage constraints like API Key auth, ACL permission, and rate limit. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over similar conversion-history siblings.

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