purchase_list_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('List') without detailing traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on errors. For a list operation with three parameters, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action and resource. There's no wasted language, making it efficient for quick parsing, though this brevity comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on return values, error handling, or integration with sibling tools like 'purchase_create_order'. For a list operation in a procurement context, more guidance would be helpful for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all three parameters (state, partner_id, limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but doesn't enhance understanding further.

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 'List purchase orders' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('purchase orders'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all orders vs. filtered) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'sales_list_orders' or 'manufacturing_list_orders', which is a missed opportunity for clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for procurement workflows), or exclusions (e.g., when to use 'purchase_create_order' instead). This leaves the agent with no usage context beyond the tool name.

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