list_draft_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses paginated results, the since_id cursor mechanism, the has_more flag, and the instruction to call again with next_since_id. 'List' also implies read-only. It does not go into rate limits, ordering, or auth, but the key behavioral trait (multi-page iteration) is explicitly covered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('List draft orders with optional filters') and consists of four short, dense sentences. There is no fluff or redundancy; every sentence provides actionable information.

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?

For a listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential use cases: what it lists, optional filters, and the complete pagination protocol (has_more, next_since_id). The main gaps are the response structure of individual draft orders and explicit differentiation from sibling `list_orders`, but the description is substantially complete for driving correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (limit, status, since_id) with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds only marginal value by referencing the pagination loop ('call again with next_since_id'), which is primarily a behavioral note rather than new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('List draft orders') with optional filters, clearly distinguishing this from siblings like `list_orders` (regular orders), `get_draft_order` (single fetch), and `create_draft_order` (mutation). The scope is unambiguous.

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 clear operational context (optional filters, status filtering, pagination loop with has_more/next_since_id), which implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as `list_orders` for regular orders or `get_draft_order` for a single record, so exclusions are absent.

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