getLPOrderList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: return a paginated list with status/amounts/fees/time, no orderNo input accepted, and the polling pattern via orderStatus. No contradiction with 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?

The description is repetitive: the do-not-use-for-positions warning appears twice, and the use-after-stake/redem guidance is repeated in both the main body and the agent hint. While front-loaded and organized, the redundancy means not 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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering strategy, polling workflow, and explicit exclusions. Missing enum semantics and pagination details are gaps, but the agent hint provides a complete-enough workflow for correct invocation. Complexity is moderate, so this is nearly complete.

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 must carry the semantic burden. It does add meaning by explaining that orderStatus is used for pending-order polling and that orderNo is not an input, but it does not define what the orderType or orderStatus enum values mean, nor does it clarify days/tokenCode/poolAddress beyond the schema. Partial compensation only.

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 ('Query') and resource ('user's LP order history') with explicit scope (stake and redeem operations). It clearly differentiates from the sibling getLPPositionList by explicitly saying not to use it for position details, and the name itself disambiguates from generic order list tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: after executing stake/redeem to confirm results, when polling for pending orders, and when the user asks about order history. It also gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance with the alternative tool named (getLPPositionList), plus a concrete workflow for filtering by orderType and orderStatus because orderNo is not accepted as input.

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