Historical Orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds behavioral context by stating the exclusion of today's orders and specifying the return fields. This adds value beyond annotations.

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 concise with two sentences: first states purpose and scope, second lists return fields and date format. There is no unnecessary information.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameter format, and return fields. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but for a simple historical query tool with safe annotations, the level of detail is adequate.

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 the schema already describes each parameter. The description reiterates the date format (RFC3339) and implies start/end form a range, but adds minimal new 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 'Get historical orders between dates' and explicitly mentions it excludes today, distinguishing it from today_orders. The verb 'Get' is specific, and the resource 'historical orders' is well-defined.

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 implies when to use (for historical orders between dates) but does not explicitly mention alternatives like today_orders for current day orders or history_executions for executions. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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