주문 목록 조회

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, and the description adds significant behavioral detail: the status groupings (OPEN includes PENDING, PARTIAL_FILLED, etc., CLOSED includes FILLED, CANCELED, etc.), pagination via cursor/nextCursor, and that cursor and limit only apply to CLOSED. It also documents the return structure. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Every bullet provides necessary information without redundancy, and the main purpose sentence is front-loaded.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by documenting all parameters, their types, requiredness, defaults, and the complete return object structure including pagination fields. This makes the tool well-understood.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the exact statuses contained in OPEN and CLOSED, and clarifying that cursor/limit are only for CLOSED, which is not fully explicit in the schema's short enum descriptions.

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 '특정 계좌의 주문 목록을 조회합니다' which is a specific verb (조회) and resource (주문 목록) with account context. It distinguishes from sibling toss_get_order by indicating a list of orders rather than a single one.

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 orders for a specific account but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. There is clear context but no when-not-to-use guidance, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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