list_dca_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists orders and returns a specific response type, but lacks critical details: whether it's read-only, requires authentication, supports pagination, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the action and return type. There's no fluff or redundancy. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions, but structurally it's well-organized and front-loaded.

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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should provide more context on parameters and behavioral traits to be fully complete for safe agent use.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions no parameters at all, despite the schema having one required parameter ('list_dca_order_requests'). This leaves the agent guessing about input requirements, failing to add value beyond the bare schema.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('all DCA orders'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cancel_dca_order' or 'create_dca_order' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification. However, it doesn't specify scope beyond 'all' (e.g., filtering criteria), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_orders' or 'cancel_dca_order'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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