get_open_orders

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool lists open orders but does not disclose topN semantics, ordering, pagination, what 'open' means, or whether the operation is a safe read. This leaves material behavior undocumented.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The action, resource, and optional filter are front-loaded, making it easy to skim and immediately actionable.

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 list operation, the description is minimally viable but not complete. Missing topN semantics and any description of return behavior; without an output schema, the agent has to assume reasonable defaults for a simple list tool.

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 0% and the description only explains 'cardCode' as a customer filter. The 'topN' parameter is entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so an agent cannot know its meaning or constraints without external knowledge.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('open sales orders from SAP B1'), and an optional filter ('by customer'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_sales_order and get_open_quotations without requiring schema inspection.

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: use when you need open sales orders, optionally for a customer. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives is provided, so an agent must infer the tool's role from the name and description.

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