list_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses pagination behavior ('Returns paginated results via since_id cursor') and the continuation mechanism ('If has_more=true, call again with next_since_id'), which adds value beyond the schema. It does not mention rate limits or return field details, but the pagination disclosure is significant for a 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and devoid of filler. Every sentence provides actionable information: what the tool does and how pagination works. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential usage: it explains filtering options, pagination, and continuation. It does not need to repeat schema details, and the mention of has_more/next_since_id gives the agent the full loop for paginated retrieval. This is complete for a list tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by naming some filter fields and giving source_name examples, but it does not elaborate on date formats or parameter interactions. It neither significantly enhances nor diminishes the schema's clarity.

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 the tool's purpose: 'List orders with optional filters.' It uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('orders'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_order (single order) and count_orders (count) by implying a list operation. The mention of filters and pagination further clarifies its role.

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 context for use: listing orders with optional filters and pagination. It implicitly distinguishes itself from order-specific tools but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when to use search_orders or other siblings. Thus it gives clear context without exclusions, matching a 4.

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