query_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returns order details but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or how results are structured (e.g., pagination). For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidance from purpose. Overall, it earns its place without waste.

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 the tool's complexity (query with filters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It specifies what is returned but not the format or limitations. For a query tool, more context on result structure or constraints would be beneficial, though the purpose is clear.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value by noting 'optional filters' but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies, such as filter combinations or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('query') and resource ('OMS orders'), specifying it returns order details including notional value and SLA countdowns for institutional orders. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate_orders' or 'release_stuck_orders', which might involve order-related operations but with different purposes.

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 mentions 'optional filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_orders' or 'send_order'. It lacks explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites, leaving usage context implied rather than clearly defined.

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