get_order_history

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the description's added value is the ordering guarantee ('newest first') and the domain caveat about 'Transactie kosten' being an old payment fee rather than a food item. That caveat is real context an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the scope and ordering before the field list. The enumerated return fields partially duplicate the output schema, but the sentence is short enough that little is wasted.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description supplies everything needed to select and invoke it, plus a useful domain caveat. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly characterizes the call as implicit-scope (logged-in account) rather than parameterized, which prevents an agent from hunting for a user or date argument.

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 resource and scope ('past orders of the logged-in account', 'newest first') plus the fields returned, which lets an agent separate it from review_order, place_order and reorder. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('logged-in account'), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named, e.g. review_order for a single order or reorder for repeating one.

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