Search 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 does not mention that the operation is read-only, any potential side effects, auth requirements, or pagination behavior. The only behavioral hint is 'returns a list', which is minimal.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words, earning high marks for succinctness. However, it is arguably too sparse to fully support the tool's complexity, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks essential details like search criteria, pagination, result format, and any behavioral or safety context, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 description adds no meaning to the parameters; it does not explain start_date, end_date, date_type, or progress_list. Schema coverage is only 50% (start_date and end_date are described as YYYY-MM-DD, but date_type and progress_list are not), and the description does not compensate for this gap.

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 action (search) and resource (orders), and specifies the return type as a list of order numbers ('注文番号リストを返す'). This distinguishes it from order detail or mutation tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like rms_search_order_items.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rms_order_detail or rms_search_order_items. It only describes what the tool does, not the context or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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