List sales orders

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond them: totals are decimal strings and status values are not a closed set. This materially helps an agent avoid parsing mistakes and future breakage. 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 compact and front-loaded with the core operation, then adds only high-value caveats: status tokens, decimal-string totals, and open-world status handling. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant boilerplate.

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 list endpoint with nine optional filters and no output schema, the description covers the most important non-obvious details: allowed statuses, decimal-string totals, and open-world status handling. It doesn't describe the full response shape or default ordering, but the schema's page and datetime documentation plus annotations cover most invocation needs.

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 67%, and the schema already documents most parameters well, including page semantics, datetime ranges, and filter meanings. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the status enum, which is already in the schema, so it contributes little beyond the structured input description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List sales orders' with the endpoint GET /public/v1/orders. It is clearly a collection-level read operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling distru_get_order beyond the natural list-vs-single distinction.

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?

Usage context is implied by the 'List' verb and the sibling tool names, but the description never states when to choose this over distru_get_order or other sibling tools. It gives helpful operational context about statuses and open-world values but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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