sezzle_get_order_report

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the seven-day maximum range, the exclusion of customer PII, and the 'allowlisted' access restriction. These details go beyond the structured annotations and give the agent meaningful constraints for invoking the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every phrase—'allowlisted,' 'order report,' 'maximum seven-day range,' 'excluding customer PII'—carries meaningful, non-obvious information. It is as concise as possible while still conveying the core purpose and key constraints.

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?

The description covers the main behavior and important constraints, but it lacks any mention of return format, pagination, or possible errors, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. For a tool with only two date parameters and strong safety annotations, it is adequate but not fully complete. The 'allowlisted' aspect also remains unexplained, leaving uncertainty about access prerequisites.

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 provides no descriptions for start_date and end_date, and the tool description also fails to explain their semantics beyond the obvious names. The only parameter-related hint is the 'maximum seven-day range,' but that does not clarify how the dates should be formatted, which is start vs. end, or how they interact. With 0% schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it does not.

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 'Get' and identifies the resource as the Sezzle order report, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sezzle_get_order, which likely fetches a single order. The qualifier 'allowlisted' adds a scope boundary, and the 'maximum seven-day range' specifies the report's time span. This is clear, specific, and differentiates the tool from alternatives.

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 implies usage context through the phrase 'order report' and the seven-day range constraint, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings such as sezzle_get_order or sezzle_get_settlement_details. There are no exclusions or alternative comparisons. The context is present but not made actionable.

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