Orders History Editions Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the required OAuth scope (read_orders) and the API version (2025-03), both of which affect whether a call will succeed. It does not cover pagination or result size, which is a minor gap.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by endpoint, scope, and version. Every line carries information an agent can act on, with no filler.

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 read-only log retrieval with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth scope, and API version. It stops short of describing what an edition log entry contains or how results are ordered or paginated, which would help the agent interpret the response.

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 all three parameters documented including the fields and response_format semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get the log of product/quantity edits applied to an order,' which is far more precise than the title 'Orders History Editions Get'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tiendanube_orders_history_values_get, leaving the agent to infer the difference between the two history endpoints.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource description and the 'Required scope: read_orders' line, which tells the agent the permission needed. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over tiendanube_orders_history_values_get or tiendanube_orders_get, and no exclusions.

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