Search Orders

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the OAuth2 read scope requirement, which is useful, but it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, response structure, error handling, or any side effects. For a search tool, these omissions leave behavioral expectations underspecified.

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 minimal and well-organized: a single-sentence purpose, an authentication note, and three concise usage examples. It front-loads the core action and avoids redundant prose. Every element earns its 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the core purpose and gives practical examples for site_id and status. While it lacks explicit guidance on account selection and pagination, the schema descriptions for those parameters fill the gaps. Overall, sufficient for a search tool given the structured schema.

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 0% per the signal, so the description must compensate. It adds value by showing how natural language maps to site_id (e.g., 'Argentina' → 'MLA') and status (via 'paid orders', 'pending shipment'), but it does not explain limit, offset, or account beyond what the schema already describes. The examples are partial compensation, resulting in a modest score.

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 clearly states the action ('Search orders') and the target resource ('orders for the authenticated seller in a given country'). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_items (items) and get_order (single order), and the usage examples reinforce the scope by mapping natural language queries to site IDs.

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 examples imply when to use the tool (e.g., 'Show me my recent orders' suggests searching by criteria), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_order (specific order ID) or how to combine with account filtering. The OAuth scope requirement is a prerequisite, not usage routing. No exclusion conditions are given.

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