Get Orders Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value by disclosing pagination defaults, the max-250 cap, the has_more flag, and concrete error semantics (400 on unrecognised status, 401 on bad API keys). The only real omission is what 'summary' contains beyond a list plus has_more, which the output schema likely covers.

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 purpose and 'when to use' are front-loaded, and the headers make it skimmable. The Parameters section duplicates schema content almost one-for-one, which is mild waste given the schema coverage, but the Returns and Errors blocks each earn their space.

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 simple read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage, a complete schema, and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: filtering, sorting caveat, pagination bounds, output format, and failure modes. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description's parameter block largely restates the schema (defaults, max, enum values). It does add example status values and clarifies response_format's intent ('markdown' human-readable vs 'json' machine-readable), but 'refer to the StarShipIt API docs' leaves the sort field as opaque as the schema does — no net gain there.

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 verb and resource ('Get a summary of orders filtered by status from StarShipIt') and scopes it to reporting/dashboard use. It never names the overlapping status-specific siblings (starshipit_list_shipped_orders, starshipit_list_delivered_orders, starshipit_search_orders), so an agent still has to guess whether this or a dedicated list tool is the right call.

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 'When to use' line gives an explicit positive condition ('status-specific count or listing for reporting') and an exclusion ('not fulfilment operations'), which meaningfully trims the candidate set. It stops short of pointing at the specific alternative tools to use instead for fulfilment or free-text lookup.

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