sales_list_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), rate limits, or authentication needs, which are critical for a list tool with filtering parameters.

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 without any wasted text. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though this brevity contributes to gaps 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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or usage context, which are essential for an agent to effectively invoke this tool with its three parameters in a server with many sibling tools.

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 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (state with enum values, partner_id for customer filtering, limit with default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 sales orders' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('sales orders'), providing basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'sales_create_order' or 'purchase_list_orders' beyond the resource name, making it somewhat vague about its specific scope within the sales domain.

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. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over other list tools (e.g., 'sales_confirm_order' for actions, 'odoo_search' for generic searches) or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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