fetch_orders

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses the read-only nature implicitly, the auth requirement, the ordering (newest first), the pagination termination rule, and the exact return envelope. It stops short of rate limits, error behavior, and what happens to non-terminal orders (error vs empty).

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?

Front-loads purpose, then the return shape, then the iteration procedure. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is redundant filler and the pagination instructions are placed after the reader knows what the fields mean.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly supplies the return contract ({ items, next_cursor }) and the termination condition, plus auth requirements. It is close to complete, with only error cases and the distinction from sibling history tools left uncovered.

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 coverage is already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds a nuance the schema lacks: 'limit sets the size of ONE page, not a total', which prevents a common misuse. It also reinforces cursor opacity and the omit-for-first-page rule that the schema already states, so the added value is real but modest.

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 scoped to 'terminal-status order history (filled / cancelled / rejected / expired), newest first', which tells the agent it excludes live/open orders. However, the sibling list contains near-duplicates (fetch_order_history, get_order_history) that are never mentioned, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the three to call.

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?

Gives strong operational guidance for iteration ('keep calling with cursor until next_cursor is null') and an auth prerequisite ('Requires API credentials'), but usage here is about how to page, not when to choose this tool over fetch_order_history, get_order_history, or fetch_open_orders. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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