List import orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing freshness dependency on sync_store_orders and the shape of each returned row. It does not describe pagination behavior or how much data a page holds, leaving one gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition and dense with useful detail; every sentence carries information. It slips into sentence fragments ('ignored true lists the orders you hid...') that read slightly clipped, but nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on return-shape duty by naming the grid columns. It omits default page size and total-count behavior, which matters for a paginated list, so it is strong but not fully 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?

At 50% schema coverage, limit and offset are undocumented in both the schema and the description. The text does add meaning for ignored ('lists the orders you hid with ignore_orders'), clarifying beyond the schema's 'Show the ignored orders instead,' but nothing explains search or paging semantics, so compensation is partial.

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 with tight scope: unshipped orders from connected store integrations, 'one row per order with the grid's columns (order number, recipient, items, store).' That distinguishes it from list_shipments and list_batches by domain, though it never names a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives explicit workflow context: 'Run sync_store_orders first for the newest' and 'Use order ids in create_batch_from_orders,' plus the condition that ignored=true surfaces orders hidden by ignore_orders. It offers no exclusion ('don't use this when...'), so it reads as clear context without alternatives rather than full 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.