list_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all orders' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify if this requires authentication, what the return format is (e.g., list, paginated), or any rate limits. It misses key details like whether it returns real-time or historical data, making it inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 very concise with just three words, which is efficient for a simple tool. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it might be overly terse, lacking necessary context that could make it more helpful without adding significant length.

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 complexity (a read operation with no parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'orders' entails (e.g., type, status), the return format, or any behavioral aspects like authentication needs. For a tool in a financial context with siblings like 'cancel_order', more detail is warranted to ensure correct usage.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the lack of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 'List all orders' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('orders'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_positions' or 'get_snapshots' which might also retrieve order-related data, and the scope 'all orders' could be ambiguous without context about filtering or pagination.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for retrieving historical orders, open orders, or all orders, nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication or rate limits. The description lacks any context to help an agent choose between this and siblings like 'get_positions' or 'search_contracts'.

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