ecommerce_listOrdersV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers beyond expectations for a list operation: it surfaces that results are summaries, that ordering is newest-first by default, that amounts use the smallest currency unit, and that line items, addresses and fulfilments are deliberately excluded. It abstains from overpromising on details like pagination or rate limits, but what it discloses is genuinely useful behavioral information an agent would otherwise have to discover at runtime.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the operation and output shape, the second enumerates filter capabilities, and the third provides the crucial caveat. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded for an agent scanning to decide on invocation.

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 10-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, the description provides strong orientation: field semantics (currency units), payload granularity (summaries), default ordering, and what to do when full order details are required. Minor gaps—pagination behavior, page indexing—exist, but for a complex read endpoint, the description covers the highest-value 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 100%, so every parameter already has a description in the schema. The description's mention of filtering maps conceptually to the parameters but adds no syntax, defaults, or formatting details beyond what's in the schema, so it earns the baseline 3 without surpassing it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List a store's orders') and immediately adds two crucial disambiguators: default ordering ('newest first') and scope ('as summaries'). It also differentiates itself from ecommerce_retrieveAnOrderV1 by noting that line items, addresses and fulfilments require fetching a single order. An agent can tell exactly what operation this performs and how it differs from the sibling.

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 filter enumeration ('status, payment or fulfilment status, customer email, order number or a free-text query') gives an agent clear context on the kind of queries this supports. The closing sentence 'Retrieve a single order for its line items, addresses and fulfilments' is an implied usage guideline for when to leave this list tool and go elsewhere, though it never explicitly names the alternative tool or states a definitive 'use X when' rule.

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