Historique des ordres

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description carries a lighter burden. It usefully discloses that only terminal statuses (filled/cancelled/rejected) and executed quantities are returned, which is real behavioral context. It stops short of describing pagination, ordering, or auth requirements.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is compact and information-bearing, though the parenthetical API reference and list of filters make it slightly crowded.

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?

For a read-only, all-optional-parameter query with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what population is returned (terminal-status orders), which fields are relevant (executed quantities), and how to filter. The absence of an output schema is partly offset by naming returned statuses and quantities.

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 all five parameters are already documented with formats and bounds (ISO 8601 UTC, default 100 / max 1000). The description only restates the filter categories (range, connectionId/accountId, limit) without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (orders history) and scopes it with 'terminés' (completed), which meaningfully distinguishes it from the sibling quantower_get_orders. It also names the underlying Core.GetOrdersHistory call, adding traceability. It does not, however, explicitly name the alternative sibling to route against.

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 'ordres terminés' scoping implies when to use this over quantower_get_orders (completed vs. active orders), but the usage boundary is left to inference. There are no explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites stated.

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