GetStoreTrackedExternalOrders

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'latest' without explaining ordering, default behavior when 'count' is omitted, whether it is read-only, or if there are rate limits. This is severely lacking, as it does not convey safety or performance characteristics.

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 sentence that directly states the core purpose. It is front-loaded and concise. However, it is too sparse, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity, which prevents it from being a perfect 5.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description should at least clarify what 'tracked external orders' means, how many are returned by default, and that it is scoped to a store (implied by name). It omits these details, making it incomplete for an agent to understand what the tool returns or how to use it effectively.

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 schema has 100% coverage for its single parameter 'count', but the tool description adds no value beyond that. It does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent without additional context (e.g., default value, allowed range, behavior when omitted). Baseline for high schema coverage would be 3, but lack of description contribution reduces the score.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get the latest tracked external orders', identifying the action and the resource. The name 'GetStoreTrackedExternalOrders' further distinguishes it from sibling 'GetStoreTrackedOrders' (presumably internal orders) and 'GetStoreTrackedClicks', but the description does not explicitly differentiate. Thus, purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetStoreTrackedOrders' or 'GetOrderListFull'. No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context (e.g., store identification). The description provides no usage context, leaving the agent without decision support.

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