list_orders_by_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the return type ('array of order objects') and platform context, which is useful. However, it does not disclose exact-match behavior for email, pagination, or potential side effects, leaving some uncertainty.

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?

Very concise: two sentences, each with a distinct purpose. The first states the tool's function, the second points to a sibling tool. No wasted words and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, return type, and a useful alternative. It lacks explicit pagination or exact-match details, but these are not critical given the low complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds that the email identifies the customer, but it does not provide format details, matching rules, or additional parameter clarifications. Minimal compensation for the missing schema description.

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' with a clear resource ('orders') and a defined scope ('by their email address'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_order by directing users there for full order details.

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 offers a clear usage path: use this to list orders by email, then use get_order for full detail. However, it does not mention other sibling tools like get_account_orders or list_subscriptions, so the guidance is helpful but not exhaustive.

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