agency-hosting_listOrdersV1

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

The description adds useful context: pagination behavior and an authentication requirement. With no annotations, it does not disclose default page sizes, maximum per_page values, response structure, or whether the list is limited to the current client's own orders, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 13-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler, redundant phrases, or repeated schema information.

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 list tool with two optional parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema and no mention of pagination defaults or response shape, so the agent must infer these details from naming conventions and general expectations.

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 provides 100% coverage, documenting both page and per_page with brief descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the high schema coverage keeps this at the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Returns') with a clear resource ('Agency Plan orders') and a scope qualifier ('accessible to the authenticated client'). 'Agency Plan' differentiates it from sibling tools like 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 return type: an agent would call this when needing a paginated list of Agency Plan orders. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over related order tools such as agency-hosting_listOrderResourceUsageMetricsV1 or hosting_listOrdersV1, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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