Order Fulfillments List

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond them: the exact HTTP route, the required read_shipping scope, and the pinned API version 2025-03. That auth/versioning detail is the value-add structured fields don't carry.

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?

Five short lines, front-loaded with the purpose and the sibling preference before the mechanical details. The HTTP/scope/version/return lines are compact and each carries distinct information, though the format is closer to a reference card than prose.

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 output schema, the description compensates by specifying the response envelope shape ({count, page, per_page, total?, has_more, next_page?, items[]}), so an agent knows what comes back. Combined with scope and route info, this is nearly complete; only the 'legacy' boundary conditions are left implicit.

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 100%, with page, per_page, fields, order_id, and response_format all documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only reiterates order_id implicitly via the path template and adds no new semantics for pagination or field selection.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List legacy fulfillment events of an order') and immediately distinguishes it from the modern equivalent with 'prefer fulfillment orders'. An agent can separate this from tiendanube_fulfillment_orders_list and tiendanube_order_fulfillments_get without opening any schema.

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 parenthetical 'prefer fulfillment orders' is an explicit routing instruction toward the preferred sibling tool, which is exactly the kind of when-to-use signal that helps selection. It stops short of stating when this tool is the correct choice (e.g., only for pre-migration/legacy data), so it is not a full 5.

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