get_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool lists orders with filters and does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, response shape, or required account context. Cursor and limit imply pagination, but the description does not explain how they behave.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the core operation. However, it sacrifices precision by using shorthand filter names and omitting the required parameter, so it is not fully effective despite being concise.

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 seven parameters, no annotations, and no schema description coverage, the description is too thin to support correct invocation. It does not mention the required account_seq, does not explain pagination through cursor and limit, and leaves date parameter names ambiguous. The output schema somewhat reduces the burden of explaining return values, but the input side is still incomplete.

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 names six of seven parameters but uses 'from' and 'to' instead of the actual 'from_date' and 'to_date', and it completely omits the required 'account_seq' parameter. It adds no detail about date formats, filter semantics, or cursor usage.

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 concrete action, 'List orders', with the resource and a set of filters. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like get_order by the plural form, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them. The filter names 'from' and 'to' are slightly ambiguous because the schema uses 'from_date' and 'to_date'.

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 wording 'List orders using...' implies it is the listing tool for orders rather than a single-order fetcher like get_order, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool or when to use an alternative. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, so usage context is only implied.

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