Get Orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'Retrieves a list' is consistent with these and adds no contradiction. It provides the optional filtering behavior, which is a minor extra, but does not disclose anything beyond what annotations imply (e.g., no auth details, rate limits, or side effects). Since annotations cover safety, the description's contribution is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences that essentially repeat the same information: the first says 'Get all activities/orders from your portfolio, optionally filtered by account' and the second says 'Retrieves a list of all buy/sell orders in your portfolio, optionally filtered by a specific account.' This is redundant and could be condensed to a single sentence without losing any meaning.

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 (1 optional parameter, 0 required), has an output schema (not shown), and annotations cover safety. The description covers the core function and the filter option. Given that it has an output schema, it doesn't need to explain return format. It could be more complete regarding sorting or pagination, but these are likely in the output schema. Overall, it is complete for an agent to call 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% for the single parameter account_id, which already fully explains it as 'Optional account ID to filter orders by specific account.' The description repeats this without adding any new semantics, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves all portfolio orders, optionally filtered by account. It uses specific verbs ('get', 'retrieves') and a clear resource (orders/activities), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle balances, accounts, watchlists, and other domains. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 the tool (for retrieving orders) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like get_portfolio_holdings or get_investments. It mentions optional filter by account but doesn't state conditions under which one would prefer another tool. It provides basic usage context but no explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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