kroger_get_order_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention authentication requirements or how the returned data is structured. This is a significant gap for a tool that accesses account data.

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, focused sentence that earns its place. It conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), but the description omits usage guidelines and behavioral details such as login requirements or return value shape. It is minimally viable but leaves clear gaps in context that could affect correct invocation.

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 fully describes the only parameter `limit` as 'Number of orders to retrieve', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter context. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles 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's purpose: 'Get recent order history from Kroger account.' It identifies the verb (get) and resource (recent order history), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like kroger_view_cart and kroger_get_coupons. However, it does not explicitly call out alternatives, hence not a 5.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to log in first) or scenarios where this tool is preferred. This lack of usage context means the agent must infer from the tool name alone.

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