Unconfirmed 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 states the core purpose and clarifies the status meaning, but does not mention return format, pagination, date filtering behavior, or any operational details. Minimal transparency beyond the obvious.

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 that front-loads the essential purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately minimal for a simple list tool.

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?

While the tool is relatively simple, the description omits necessary context such as parameter semantics, what fields are returned, and how this tool differs from closely related siblings. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be considered complete.

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%, and the description does not mention the start_date and end_date parameters at all. An agent has no idea what these parameters do or how to use them, making this a critical 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 'List of unconfirmed (awaiting order confirmation) orders' in Japanese, specifying both the action (list) and the resource (unconfirmed orders). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like rms_search_orders or rms_pending_shipping by focusing on the unconfirmed status.

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 usage for retrieving unconfirmed orders, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like rms_search_orders or rms_order_detail. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria are given, leaving selection to inference from the name.

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