get_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses the requirement of an authenticated Carrefour session, mentions the paginated response with a list of orders and specific fields, and explains the pagination mechanism. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior but implies it; no contradictions. It could add details on rate limits or error cases but is adequately transparent for a retrieval tool.

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 succinct, roughly three sentences, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes: what it does, what it returns, and how the parameters work. No redundant phrases or filler. Excellent structure.

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 retrieval tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return value (list of order details and fields), authentication requirement, and pagination workflow. It could mention if startDate and endDate are required together or if scrollSize has a max, but given the complexity level, it is nearly complete for effective agent use.

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 already documents all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the description's contribution is modest. However, it adds valuable context by explaining how startDate/endDate filter the date range, scrollSize limits page size, and scrollHash/scrollPaging work together for pagination—reinforcing the schema descriptions and weaving them into the tool's overall behavior.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource combination: 'Retrieves the authenticated user's order history on Carrefour France.' It distinctly identifies the scope (order history) and differentiates from siblings like get_last_orders and get_loyalty_order_receipts by focusing on the full paginated history.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: for a paginated list of order history with filtering and pagination capabilities. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context across siblings (e.g., get_last_orders for recent orders, receipt-specific tools) makes application scenarios reasonably clear.

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