List orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only sort order ('newest first'). It says nothing about pagination behavior, default/max page size, whether the result set can be filtered, latency, or permissions. For an unannotated listing endpoint this leaves major gaps.

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?

It is a single terse fragment with the one useful fact (newest first) front-loaded, so there is no wasted prose. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness given the two undocumented parameters and many siblings.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, two undocumented parameters, and a crowded sibling set including get_order_status and get_order_group, the definition leaves an agent without enough to decide when to call this or how to page through results. It is far too thin for the surrounding tool surface.

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% and the description never mentions the page or size parameters, their defaults (1 and 20), or the 200 maximum. The parameters are conventional so the harm is limited, but the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 identifies the resource (orders via the /order_status/list endpoint) and adds one real fact, that results are sorted newest first. But it is essentially a restatement of the tool name plus a route, with no scope, no notion of what an order record contains, and no differentiation from siblings like get_order_status or list_rejected_emails.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether this should be preferred over get_order_status, list_rejected_emails, or search_customers for locating order data. The only inference an agent can make is that this is the generic paged listing.

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