get_orders

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses pagination, inline related data, and search matching. It could mention if the inline data includes full objects or summaries, but overall it is transparent.

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?

Two sentences achieve clarity: first states core function and features, second gives usage example. No wasted words, front-loaded with key info.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description hints at response structure (inline offers and invoices) and provides a usage question. It lacks explicit mention of pagination metadata or full response format, but is mostly complete.

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 minimal new meaning beyond schema, tying parameters to a use case ('what was quoted and billed'). The search parameter clarification is redundant with 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 description clearly states it lists orders with connected offers and invoices inline, paginated, and provides a specific query example. It distinguishes from siblings like get_invoices or get_offers by emphasizing combined data.

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 a concrete use case ('what was quoted and billed on order X') and clarifies search behavior. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but sibling tool names imply alternatives.

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