order_history

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

The description includes '[REQUIRES AUTH]', which is a behavioral trait, but no annotations exist. It does not disclose other behaviors like whether it is read-only, side effects, rate limits, or output characteristics.

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 very concise with a single sentence that front-loads the auth requirement. While efficient, it could benefit from a bit more detail without increasing verbosity.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and a rich set of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what the order history contains, scope (user-specific?), or pagination, making it insufficient for confident use.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting baseline criteria.

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 'Get order history' as a verb+resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'trade_history' (trades) and 'trans_history' (transactions), but does not explicitly differentiate, leaving slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'trade_history' or 'open_orders'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context provided.

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