List orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying pagination and that orders are scoped to the authenticated client, but it does not disclose defaults, limits, or response structure. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded sentence containing the verb, resource, scope, and pagination behavior with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 simple read-only paginated list with no required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. The absence of an output schema leaves return-field details unspecified, but that is a minor gap for a list operation.

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 input schema describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description need not restate them. The word 'paginated' aligns with the page/per_page parameters but adds no new semantic detail beyond 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 description clearly states the verb 'Returns' and the specific resource 'Agency Plan orders', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. The qualifier 'Agency Plan' distinguishes it from sibling order-listing tools such as hosting_listOrdersV1 and mail_listOrdersV1.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource scope: an agent would select this when listing Agency Plan orders. However, the description does not explicitly contrast it with sibling order-list tools, resource-usage metrics tools, or other billing/order endpoints, so guidance on when-not-to-use is missing.

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