Analyze order history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'enrich a bounded recent subset' and 'explicit coverage,' hinting at limits and what is included, but does not specify whether the tool is read-only, if it modifies data, or any side effects. It adequately describes the process but lacks depth on safety or idempotence.

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 a single sentence that packs substantial information without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly restructured for readability, but overall it is concise.

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 no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It mentions calculating 'product frequency, cadence, customization, and visible-spend statistics,' giving an idea of the output, but not its structure or format. With 4 optional parameters, the description covers the process but lacks full completeness on output and prerequisites.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning like 'bounded recent subset' which relates to detail_limit, but the schema already explains each parameter's purpose and defaults. The description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action: walking cursor-correct history, enriching a bounded recent subset, and calculating various statistics. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like glovo_get_purchase_history, glovo_get_order_items, and glovo_get_order_stats by offering an aggregated analysis rather than raw data retrieval.

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 description implies when to use the tool (for aggregated statistics) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. It could be improved by stating that for raw history or individual order details, other sibling tools should be used.

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