search_order

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is a read, that results are session-scoped, and that there is no server-side filtering. However, it does not mention pagination, result limits, return format details, or authentication assumptions, leaving some behavioral uncertainty for a no-annotation tool.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states exactly what the tool returns, and the second gives a direct usage workflow. The key information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify return values and potential caveats. It says 'Order objects visible to this session,' which describes the result, and the workflow advice helps the agent understand what to do with the output. However, it omits whether the return is a flat array, whether pagination applies, and any error or auth scenarios. For a simple read tool this is close but not 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema is an empty object, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context by explaining that filtering is done client-side, which justifies the absence of filter parameters in the schema. This is meaningful clarification beyond the empty 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Order objects'), and the plural 'objects' together with 'Filter the returned objects' clearly indicates this is a listing/search tool, distinguishing it from a single-object getter like get_order. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling differentiation, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: retrieve all visible orders, filter client-side, then pass selected IDs to pivot, set, or aggregate tools. This tells the agent how to compose the tool with downstream operations successfully. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or recommend get_order as an alternative, but the workflow guidance is valuable.

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