List orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List orders' and mentions filters; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (though listing implies it), whether results are paginated, what the response shape is, or any side effects. This is a minimal description that leaves the agent guessing about 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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and lists filters in parentheses. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it could add a bit more behavioral context without becoming bloated.

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 list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent needs to know whether results are paginated, what the response format is, and what valid status values are. The sibling list tools (e.g., gambot_list_campaigns, gambot_list_leads) suggest a pattern, but the description itself does not provide enough context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters. It mentions 'status / store / date range' which covers status, storeId, and dateFrom/dateTo conceptually, but it does not explain the expected format for dates, whether status values are enumerated, or whether storeId is an ID string. The description adds some meaning but leaves significant gaps.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('orders'), and mentions optional filters (status, store, date range) that map to the parameters. It is distinguishable from siblings like gambot_get_order (singular) and gambot_create_order, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies this is the tool for retrieving multiple orders, and the optional filters suggest when to use them. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over gambot_get_order or other list tools, and no context about pagination or result limits.

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