list_orders

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent. It adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotation: exact return structure with lastTransactionID, field-level semantics (signed units, state enum, price as decimal string), and optional bookkeeping fields. This exceeds the minimal read-only disclosure.

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?

The description is front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a detailed but organized return structure. The field list is lengthy but informative, and each sentence conveys meaningful information without redundancy. It is longer than minimal but appropriately sized for a complex return type.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 optional parameters, rich return schema, no required inputs), the description is highly complete. It covers the return format, field details, and data conventions (e.g., signed units). The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return values, yet the description goes beyond that.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the schema (coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter-level details. The description does not specifically elaborate on limit, state, before_id, or instrument beyond what the schema already states, meriting the baseline score.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'List orders on the configured account'. It conveys the scope (account-level) and ordering (most recent first). It also enumerates the order types returned, which distinguishes it from list-related siblings like get_order or list_pending_orders.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool versus list_pending_orders or other listing tools. However, by describing return fields that include all order states and a state filter, it implies comprehensive order listing. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions.

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