get_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination support, which is useful, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what format orders are returned in, or whether this is a real-time or historical view of orders.

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 appropriately brief with two sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the core function and mentioning pagination support. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'orders' means in this context, what data fields are returned, whether this includes open/closed/both orders, or how the pagination metadata is structured. Given the complexity implied by having sibling order-related tools, more 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('limit' and 'from') well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the schema, only mentioning pagination support without providing additional parameter context or examples.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('orders'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_order_history' or 'get_order_trades', which appear to be related order retrieval functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_order_history' or 'get_order_trades'. It mentions pagination support but doesn't explain when pagination should be used or what distinguishes this tool from other order-related tools.

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