strategy_get_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated and that fields carry native semantics rather than normalized values, which is useful behavioral context. It stops short of describing rate limits, ordering defaults, or what an empty result means.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that starts with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 six-parameter read tool with incomplete schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what a 'filled-order report record' contains, how entity_id scopes the query, or what pagination defaults apply, leaving meaningful gaps for the agent.

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 only 33%: target_id and expected_layout_id are documented, but entity_id, limit, order, and offset have no schema descriptions. The only hint from the description is the word 'pagination', which loosely maps to limit/offset but gives no defaults, ranges, or meaning for entity_id. With low coverage, the description should compensate and does not.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read all filled-order report records'), which is clearer than a bare tautology. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like strategy_get_trades, strategy_get_report, or strategy_get_equity, leaving the agent to guess which report view to call. 'Explicit native field semantics' is vague and does not sharpen 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling strategy/data tools. 'Read all' implies a listing role, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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