List Purchase Orders

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 meaningful behavioral context by specifying that results are paginated and by describing the return payload structure (items array with PO UUID, code, vendor, warehouse, status, dates). This goes beyond what annotations provide, without contradicting them.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by an Args list and a Returns clause. Every element carries necessary information, and there is no fluff or redundancy beyond the schema repetition, which is acceptable for a standalone tool 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 simple paginated list tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies all parameters with defaults, enumerates the response format options, and summarizes the fields present in each item. Given the low complexity and strong annotations, no additional context is needed.

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%, with detailed descriptions for each parameter (page, page_size, response_format) including ranges, defaults, and enum meanings. The tool description repeats these details without adding additional semantics, such as edge-case handling or parameter interactions. Therefore, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purchase (inbound) orders and explicitly notes pagination. The parenthetical '(inbound)' distinguishes from outbound shipment orders, and the verb 'List' is specific to the collection-level operation, clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like get_purchase_order or create_purchase_order.

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 implies usage by the verb 'List' and the clarification of inbound orders, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_purchase_order for a single order or create_purchase_order. There is no exclusionary guidance, but the intended use for listing multiple orders is clear from the title and description.

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