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 and does well: it declares the tool is read-only, states it exposes no secrets and performs no order-flow control, and specifies that invalid values fail with a validation error. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, keeping it from a 5.

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 dense but efficient single paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose and read-only guarantee. Every sentence carries operational information, though the prose could be split into clearer filter/sort/paging sections for faster scanning.

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 13-parameter list tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key behavioral and filter semantics: paging, sorting, venue mode, validation failure, and read-only scope. Return-value details are correctly left to the output schema, though permission or rate-limit context is absent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by consolidating filter semantics ('account (exact account code)', 'venue mode any/none/connection'), listing valid sort columns, and explaining paging defaults and caps. It is especially useful because the schema's sort.column description explicitly defers to 'the tool description' for allowed columns.

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 and resource: 'Return one page of orders' and clarifies that each row is 'the order row of the REST order list.' This distinguishes it from single-order siblings like get_order, but it never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the detailed filter list and the 'read-only - no secrets, no order-flow control' note, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_trades, get_order, or check_order. An agent can infer it is for filtered listing, but must infer the boundaries.

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