ecommerce_listStoreOrdersV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that results are summaries, ordering is newest-first, amounts use the smallest currency unit, and full details require a single-order retrieval. It omits pagination/limit behavior and does not explicitly state that this is a read-only call, but 'List' plus the provided disclosures cover the main expectations.

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 compact sentences with the core behavior front-loaded, filter capabilities in the middle, and the detail-retrieval caveat at the end. There is no filler, though the final sentence is slightly ambiguous because it reads as an instruction rather than an explicit cross-reference to a named sibling 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 10-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the returned summary nature, ordering, currency units, available filters, and the path to full order details. It still leaves minor gaps around pagination behavior and the exact fields present in a summary response, but overall it gives the agent enough to select and call the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description echoes the filter dimensions already present in the schema (q, email, display_id, status, payment_status, fulfillment_status) but does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema. The currency-unit note is about the returned data, not about parameter semantics.

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 and resource: 'List a store's orders', and immediately adds distinguishing characteristics: 'newest first as summaries'. It also separates this list operation from full-detail order retrieval by noting that line items, addresses and fulfilments are obtained from a single-order call, which differentiates it from sibling tools like ecommerce_retrieveAnOrderV1.

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 clearly states what filters can be used and implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus retrieving a single order for full details. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tool for single-order retrieval, and it does not contrast with other list tools such as ecommerce_listDiscountsV1 or ecommerce_listStorePaymentProvidersV1.

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