Orders History Values Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the required scope (read_orders) and API version, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or what happens for orders that were never edited.

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. The HTTP path and version lines are boilerplate but cheap; nothing is redundant with the name.

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, three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present. The notable gap is that 'financial values' is never unpacked—an agent cannot anticipate whether it returns totals, deltas, currency, or timestamps.

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 id, fields and response_format all documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema—it never explains that 'id' is the edited order's ID or how the fields filter interacts with this nested resource.

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 ('Get the history of financial values of an edited order') and pins the endpoint. The 'financial values' qualifier separates it in spirit from tiendanube_orders_history_editions_get, but the sibling is never named, so the agent must infer the split.

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 phrase 'of an edited order' implicitly scopes usage to orders that have been edited, which is a real condition. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over tiendanube_orders_get or tiendanube_orders_history_editions_get, nor any prerequisite statement beyond the scope line.

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