list_recent_orders

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden. It implies a read-only listing operation and mentions it helps confirm IDs before mutations, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, nor does it disclose any side effects, permissions, or return format limitations. The information is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action and output fields; the second adds a practical usage note. There is zero wasted text.

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 simple no-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (ID, name, items) and why to use it (confirm ID before mutations). It could be slightly more precise about what 'recent' means, but overall it is complete enough.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics (trivially). The description does not need to describe parameters. Per the rubric, 0 params baseline is 4.

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 verb '列出' (list) and the resource '最近的所有訂單資訊' (all recent order information), specifying the fields included (ID, name, items). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update/delete/duplicate search by being a simple listing operation.

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 explicitly instructs to call this tool before deleting or modifying an order to confirm the ID, providing a clear when-to-use scenario. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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