list_order_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output content (order numbers, dates, statuses, totals) and implies a read operation with 'Retrieves a summary.' However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or mention any authentication or rate limits, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 in the first sentence. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or fluff.

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's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the primary purpose, the time range, and the key fields in the summary. It is nearly complete, though it could mention ordering or pagination for completeness.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'days' with a clear description. The tool description adds minimal value by reframing 'past N days' in context, but does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already offers.

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 ('List') and resource ('order history') with a clear scope ('for the past N days'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_order (single order) and get_cart (current cart) by focusing on a summary of multiple past orders.

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 states the tool is 'useful for tracking order history and status,' providing a general context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like search_by_keyword or get_order, leaving the agent to infer the best choice.

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