amazon_list_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that results are ordered newest first and come from the signed-in session, which is genuinely useful. However, the text is cut off mid-sentence and says nothing about result volume, pagination, recency limits, or what happens when the session is not authenticated.

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 useful scoping and ordering facts are front-loaded in a single clause, which is good structure. But the entry trails off mid-word ("(sessio..."), so the sentence never completes and the reader cannot tell whether additional constraints were intended.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool this covers the essentials: what is listed, whose data, in what order, and from what source. The main residual gap is volume/pagination behavior, which matters for an order-history listing that can be long.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids implying any filtering or paging arguments exist.

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 and resource ("Lists the person's own Amazon orders") plus a scope qualifier ("own", "newest first") and the data source ("their signed-in Amazon page"). This is enough to separate it from amazon_search_orders on scope alone, though the description never names the search sibling explicitly.

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 is only implied: the phrase "the person's own Amazon orders" suggests browsing one's full order history rather than querying by keyword, which hints at when to prefer this over amazon_search_orders. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of an alternative tool.

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