List orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the underlying GET /orders/ endpoint, the redaction behavior of include_contact_details (off by default), and pagination semantics. That is meaningful extra context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the resource is, then the filter surface, then a high-value example and the endpoint. The field enumeration is dense but each element is informative, and nothing is redundant.

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 14 parameters and no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields and clarifies filter behavior, which compensates for the missing output schema. Minor gaps remain, such as not restating pagination limits, but the schema covers those.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by grouping the filters conceptually and showing how payment_status and due_before compose for the overdue-unpaid case. It does not add syntax or formats beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States the resource (sales orders, which in Breww are also the invoices), the fields returned, and the filter dimensions, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from list_customers, list_products, or the singular get_order. The verb is implicit but unambiguous from the name and content.

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?

Provides a concrete worked example of the intended query pattern ('what is unpaid and overdue?' via payment_status unpaid/part_paid with due_before today), which tells the agent when this tool fits. It does not explicitly name get_order as the alternative for a single order, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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