Purchase history

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions page is 1-based, implying pagination, but does not disclose page size, default ordering, or whether all orders are returned. No information about rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness is provided.

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 two sentences, no redundant information. However, it could be better structured by grouping the return fields in a list or noting the pagination more explicitly.

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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing return fields. However, it omits important context like authentication requirements, pagination limit, and total count. For a list tool of moderate complexity, this is adequate but not complete.

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% with one parameter. The description adds value by specifying 'Page is 1-based', which clarifies the parameter's behavior beyond the schema's 'Default 1'. This helps the agent understand page numbering convention.

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 it lists past orders and specifies the fields returned (date, total, status, item count). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_order_items' which likely lists items within an order. However, it does not explicitly state the scope (e.g., for the current user), leaving minor 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_order_items' or 'get_cart'. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context where another tool would be more appropriate.

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