Orders List

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description still adds real value: the page*per_page <= 10000 hard cap, the read_orders scope requirement, the API version and its instability caveat, and the response envelope. That is substantive operational context beyond structured fields.

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 compact lines: purpose first, then the highest-risk constraint, then transport/auth/version metadata, then the return shape. No sentence is redundant and nothing important is buried.

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 19-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description still discloses the response envelope, auth scope, version risk and the pagination ceiling, which is what an agent most needs. It stops short of describing how the many filters compose or which are recommended for typical queries.

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%, so the schema already documents all 19 parameters including enums and the page/per_page constraint. The description repeats the cap rule but adds no filter-combination or format semantics of its own; baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List orders") plus the underlying endpoint GET /orders and required scope. It is clear against tiendanube_orders_get, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from tiendanube_draft_orders_list or notes what it does not return, leaving a small inference gap.

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 deep-history workaround (slice by created_at/updated_at or use since_id) is genuinely actionable usage guidance for the pagination cap. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this over sibling list/get tools or which filters to prefer for common tasks.

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