orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful constraints such as the maximum limit of 100 and the status meanings, but it does not describe pagination, sorting, or other behavioral details beyond those annotations.

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 compact sentence with the resource named first and the key status semantics immediately after. Every clause carries useful information, including the limit constraint, with no wasted text.

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?

With an output schema and read-only annotations already present, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It is still incomplete because it omits the symbol parameter and does not clarify how this listing tool differs from sibling tools like order_log.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the status enum values and the limit cap, which is helpful, but it says nothing about the symbol parameter, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific resource ('주문 목록') and clarifies what OPEN and CLOSED mean, so the agent knows this retrieves order lists filtered by status. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like order_log or order_detail, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

By defining OPEN as unfilled/in-progress orders and CLOSED as completed orders, it implies when each status value should be used. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus order_log, order_detail, or other order-related siblings.

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