order_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the auth requirement and that older_than is timezone-aware, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about ordering of results, pagination behavior, what an order record contains, or what happens when no history exists.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than wasteful, so it sits just below the top of the scale.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits too much: the count parameter, result ordering, and return shape are all unaddressed. Only half the parameter surface is covered.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it only partially does: older_than is explained as a timezone-aware ISO timestamp, which is real added meaning. The count parameter is never mentioned, leaving its meaning (page size? default 21?) completely undocumented in both the schema and the 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 says "Read authenticated order history," naming a specific verb and resource, which distinguishes it from write-side siblings such as submit_order and cancel_order. It does not, however, distinguish it from active_orders or order_preview, which are the closest read alternatives.

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 only usage signal is the word "authenticated," implying a logged-in session is required. There is no statement about when to use this versus active_orders (current orders) or order_preview, and no guidance on how the count and older_than parameters interact for paging through history.

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