get_order_historyLists recent completed Picnic deliveries newest first, showing order time, delivery window, and total paid in cents; product details are excluded.
List the user's recent completed deliveries, newest first, with order time, delivery window and total paid in cents. It does not list the products in each order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations don't carry, namely sort order and the explicit omission of line items. It stops short of describing pagination or what happens as orders age out, which would have made it a 5.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the returned shape front-loaded and the exclusion placed last where it reads as a caveat. Every clause carries distinct information.
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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers return fields, ordering and a key limitation. The remaining gap is the `limit` parameter and default page size, which the description leaves entirely to the schema.
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?
There is one optional parameter, `limit`, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The schema's default (10), minimum (1) and maximum (50) still convey the constraint structurally, but the description does not state what the limit counts or how it interacts with 'recent'.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List the user's recent completed deliveries') and immediately pins down ordering ('newest first') and returned fields (order time, delivery window, total paid in cents). The explicit exclusion ('does not list the products in each order') further sharpens the boundary, so an agent knows exactly what this tool yields versus a product/ingredient tool in the sibling set.
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 scope ('recent completed deliveries') implies when it applies, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus other tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. No sibling overlaps directly with order history, which limits the harm, but usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.