get_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only status, PII redaction with opt-in, API limits (page 0-49, size max 200), and the return structure (paged summary with specific fields). This is comprehensive and includes behavioral nuances like date format options and redaction defaults.

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 well-structured with an 'Args' block and a 'Returns' line. Each sentence and line provides necessary information without fluff. The status list is long but essential for valid usage. Front-loaded with the read-only note and the return summary, making it easy to scan.

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 six parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to call correctly: parameter formats, constraints, PII handling, and return fields. The output schema exists, so extra return detail is not required, but the description still provides a useful summary.

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 description must compensate. It explains every parameter: status with documented enum values, start/end date formats (ISO or epoch), page zero-based with max, size max, and include_pii with redaction context. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema, fully covering parameter semantics.

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 tool lists order packages (shipment packages) for the store, with a read-only note. The verb 'List' and resource 'order packages' are specific, and the read-only qualifier helps distinguish it from mutation tools. The sibling tools (get_products, get_claims, etc.) are clearly about other domains, so the purpose 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?

The description does not explicitly name when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent would infer its applicability for order queries, but it lacks explicit routing to alternatives like 'for product info use get_products'.

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