Get open sales orders

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

The annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context by defining 'open' as not closed and not cancelled, and by stating the default ordering is newest first.

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 no wasted words. The key scope and ordering information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simple read-only list tool with rich annotations and complete schema documentation, the description covers the essential scope and behavior. It could say slightly more about result shape or pagination expectations, but nothing critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit, fields, and cardCode are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that customer filtering is optional but does not add syntax, edge cases, or other meaning beyond the schema.

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 the resource ('sales orders') and scope ('open, not closed, not cancelled'), which distinguishes it from read-only invoice tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the resource and status are specific enough for an agent to identify the operation.

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?

It implies usage by saying the results can be optionally filtered for one customer and are returned newest first. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of siblings like get_open_invoices or run_saved_query, nor does it give exclusions.

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