get_order_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Fetch' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether authentication is required, what data is returned (e.g., fields, order of results), or if there are any side effects. This is a minimal description with no safety guarantees or behavioral details.

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 short sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without wasted words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action verb and resource.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively simple. However, it does not explain what 'transaction details' include, how far back history goes, or how results are ordered. For a zero-parameter read tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps about the return value and scope.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are no parameters to document. Schema coverage is trivially 100% with an empty properties object, so no compensation is needed.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Fetch') and resource ('order history and transaction details'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cart_items (current cart) and get_products_by_category (catalog). The verb+resource combination is specific and 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?

The usage is implied by the tool name and description: it is for retrieving past order information. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_cart_items for current cart, or place_order for creating orders). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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