list_orders

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the useful constraint that only held-out orders are returned and that count should be kept small (a context/cost signal), but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, what happens past the end of the set, or what the returned 'fields' actually contain.

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?

Short and front-loaded: purpose and the downstream use case appear in the first clause, parameters follow in a compact Args block. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical '(keep this small)' stylistically duplicates the count hint.

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 2-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool, the essentials are covered. However, the description never explains how a listed order connects to predict/explain (e.g., whether it yields a usable identifier or the label is hidden), which is the agent's most likely point of confusion when chaining.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'start' is defined as the index of the first order and 'count' as how many to list, plus a practical hint to keep count small. It does not state the defaults (5 and 0) or bounds/validation, which the schema leaves bare.

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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (orders) plus a meaningful scope qualifier, 'new (held-out)', which tells the agent these are unlabeled/unseen records. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling ledger_entries, which could plausibly also enumerate orders, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as a pre-step: 'so you can choose one to predict or explain,' which tells the agent when to reach for it and what comes next. No when-not conditions or negative routing (e.g., versus ledger_entries) are given, but the usage context is clear.

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