list_historical_orders

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

The annotation readOnlyHint:true already declares read-only behavior. The description adds rich behavioral details: output structure with fields, pagination via cursor, and a rate limit of 6/1min. This exceeds the minimal expectation and fully informs the agent of the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then output format, pagination, and rate limit. Every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by merging some sentences, but is appropriate in length.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description is fully self-sufficient: it explains the output structure, pagination, filtering, and rate limit. For a list tool, this level of detail ensures the agent can use it correctly without additional information.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor context (e.g., passing cursor back) and an example ticker format, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. It meets the baseline without going higher.

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 clearly states the tool lists executed (historical) equity orders, newest first. The verb 'list' and resource 'historical equity orders' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_orders' (likely pending) by emphasizing 'executed' and 'historical', but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to retrieve executed orders) and includes pagination instructions and rate limit. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings, but the context is sufficient for basic usage.

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