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 does disclose that the tool returns recent orders, includes line items, and sorts by most recent first. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what 'recent' means, whether pagination or rate limiting applies, or how errors are handled. The verb 'Returns' implies a read operation but falls short of explicit transparency.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the ordering detail in the second sentence adds value. Both sentences earn their 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 moderate 3-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides essential context: the resource (orders), tenant scoping, inclusion of line items, and ordering. The schema covers parameter details. It does not describe the return shape beyond line items or mention pagination, but for a simple list-retrieval tool this is reasonably 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 100%, so all three parameters (tenant_id, limit, status) are already documented. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; the only overlap is 'tenant' in the description aligning with tenant_id. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 ('Returns'), a resource ('recent orders with line items'), and a scope ('for a tenant'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It also differentiates from siblings like list_tenants and get_products by focusing on orders. The additional ordering detail ('Ordered by most recent first') further sharpens the purpose.

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 that this tool is for retrieving recent orders, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools are mentioned, and no conditions or exclusions are provided. Usage guidance is left to inference from the tool name and description.

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