list_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions free-text search and paging but doesn't disclose return format, default ordering, whether results are sorted newest-first, or any rate/limit constraints. For a read-only listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste. The description efficiently mentions the core behavior (list recent orders) and key capabilities (free-text, paging). It's appropriately front-loaded and compact, though could arguably add a bit more behavioral detail without becoming verbose.

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 read-only list tool with good schema coverage (75%) and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks some context. It doesn't clarify what 'recent' means, whether results are paginated by the offset/limit pattern described, or how 'q' interacts with fields. No annotations compound the gaps.

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 description coverage is 75%, so most parameters (limit, fields, offset) are already documented in the schema. The description adds 'q' free-text capability beyond the schema. Fields parameter's purpose is reasonably explained in schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema largely handles the load.

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 states 'List recent orders' with a clear verb+resource (list orders), and mentions support for 'q' free-text and paging. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling get_order or explain what makes it different from other listing tools, so it's adequate but not fully distinguished.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives mentioned. While it's reasonable to infer this is the default order listing (vs get_order for a single order), the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings or any exclusions/prerequisites.

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