ramzinex_get_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool is read-only and requires an API token, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication details beyond token, or pagination behavior (e.g., total count, result truncation). Basic transparency is present but could be more comprehensive.

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 reasonably concise, with front-loaded purpose and an organized 'Args' section. The inclusion of a Persian-purpose line adds context but slightly duplicates the English. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no annotations, and a provided output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description is quite complete. It covers parameter details, read-only nature, and endpoint mapping. It lacks guidance on error conditions or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool, it is nearly complete.

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?

Despite the context indicating 0% schema coverage, the description lists all 8 parameters with defaults, ranges (e.g., limit 1-1000), and meanings. It adds value beyond the input schema by explaining how each filter works (e.g., 'Optional list of order-state ids to filter by'). This is excellent documentation.

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 clearly states 'List my orders, filterable and paginated (read-only)'. It specifies the verb (list), resource (orders), and scope (my orders, filterable, paginated, read-only). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ramzinex_cancel_order and ramzinex_place_limit_order. The HTTP endpoint mapping adds further clarity.

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 indicates that the tool is read-only and requires a configured API token, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives for similar functionality, such as ramzinex_get_order for a single order. There is no exclusion guidance, which is adequate but not exemplary.

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