orders_search_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the searchable fields but does not state match semantics (e.g., partial vs exact), result ordering, or explicitly confirm a read-only, side-effect-free operation. This is a moderate gap for a search tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 search tool with a complete schema, the description covers the search scope. It doesn't describe return format or pagination details, but with no output schema and well-documented parameters, this is acceptable. Slightly more behavioral detail would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. However, the description adds meaningful context by specifying exactly which fields the query targets, going beyond the schema's generic 'Free-text search query'.

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 the specific verb 'search' and resource 'orders', and enumerates the searchable fields (customer name, email, product, order number). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like orders_list_orders and orders_get_order.

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 makes the use case clear: use when you need to find orders by free-text across multiple fields. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context of siblings (list/get) implies when this tool is appropriate.

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