nex_ip_order_list

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain context by decoding the GENERAL PROCESSING and SNAP PROCESSING states, but it says nothing about result scope, ordering, or pagination behavior for a paged list tool.

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?

Three short sentences with the resource and status semantics front-loaded and no filler. The final sentence about quantitySuccess/amountRefund is packed tightly but remains readable.

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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining two result fields and the meaning of status values. It still leaves the record shape, the distinction between orders and quotas in a single result set, and paging/total semantics unexplained.

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 never mentions 'page' or 'size'. Although the parameters are conventional pagination with defaults and bounds, the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation as the low-coverage rule requires.

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 specific verb and resource ('List proxy orders and short-term quotas'), which is clearly distinct from siblings that create, buy, renew, or delete proxies. However, it never names near-neighbors like nex_billing_trade_list or nex_ip_snap_package_list, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 usage guidance is entirely about interpreting results ('Inspect quantitySuccess and amountRefund for partial delivery'), not about when to pick this tool over the billing or snap-package list siblings. The intended scenario, checking delivery status of proxy purchases, is only implied.

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