My orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds scope context — that a single call covers both running orders and history — but says nothing about authorization (the session_key dependency), pagination behavior, or what fields come back. This matches the calibration case where a scope constraint earns a 3 against solid annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence fragment with zero filler; the key distinction (active vs. history) appears immediately. It is efficient, though the fragmentary form omits any verb describing the retrieval action.

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 three parameters with only one documented, no output schema, and a dense cluster of order-related siblings, the description is too thin to guide confident selection. It never explains how this differs from order details, order status, or tracking, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces 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 only 33%, so the schema documents little beyond session_key. The description's mention of "running" and "past order history" implicitly maps to the `which` enum, but the `limit` parameter (default 10, max 30) is never referenced, and the session_key requirement is left to the schema.

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 customer's running (active) orders or past order history" names a specific resource (the customer's orders) and its two scope modes (active vs. historical), which an agent can distinguish from cart or product tools. It stops short of differentiating itself from close siblings such as foran_order_details, foran_track_order, and foran_order_status.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives, even though the sibling list contains at least four other order-related tools. The agent must infer from the name alone whether to call this or foran_order_details / foran_order_status / foran_track_order.

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