vtex_list_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List orders with filters', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 very concise ('List orders with filters'), consisting of a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a bit more context without losing conciseness, such as specifying the system (VTEX).

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 complexity (a list operation with filters and pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., JSON array of orders), error handling, or behavioral nuances like how empty results are handled. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema with clear descriptions (e.g., date format, page defaults). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how filters combine, provide examples of status values, or clarify pagination behavior. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add value here.

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 'List orders with filters' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('orders'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of orders (e.g., e-commerce orders in VTEX) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'vtex_get_order' (singular) or 'vtex_search_documents' which might also retrieve order data. This makes it vague in the broader context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer it over 'vtex_get_order' (for a single order) or 'vtex_search_documents' (for more complex queries), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or context. This leaves the agent with no usage context beyond the basic action.

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