Orders Subscriptions Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: the exact HTTP endpoint and the read_orders scope an agent must hold before calling, which annotations cannot express.

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 one-sentence purpose followed by endpoint, scope and version. Nothing is padded and every line carries usable information.

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 simple read-only sub-resource listing with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it. Only minor details such as empty-result behavior or pagination are absent, and neither is critical here.

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%, and every parameter (id, fields, response_format) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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?

"List subscriptions linked to an order" names a specific verb (list) and resource (subscriptions scoped to an order), which separates it from tiendanube_billing_subscriptions_get and the other order sub-resource tools. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the scoping is unambiguous.

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 supplies the required scope (read_orders) and API version, which are real preconditions for calling. However, it never says when to use this instead of related tools like tiendanube_orders_get or billing subscriptions, so selection guidance is only implied by the name.

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