get_order_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses defaults, the optional-profile rule, and the return shape, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only and has no side effects. The verb 'Get' plus 'Returns' makes this largely inferable, but not fully explicit.

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 structure is efficient: a one-sentence purpose, then Args and Returns sections. Every line contributes parameter or return semantics, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

With only three optional scalar parameters and an output schema already present, the description covers all invocation-relevant details: parameter meaning, defaults, the optional-profile condition, and the returned fields. An agent has enough to call the tool 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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It fully compensates by defining profile, days_back, and search, including the important conditional behavior for profile and the default for days_back.

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 phrase 'Get past order history' uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly positions this tool as the historical-order lookup among siblings like get_cart_status, confirm_order, and add_to_cart. It is immediately distinguishable without needing to open the schema.

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 makes the tool's context clear—past orders rather than current cart or menu—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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