get_work_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It conveys that this is a read-only operation through the verb 'Fetch' and describes the output as returning full WO details with costs, dates, and failure codes. It does not disclose filter combination semantics, pagination behavior, or error cases, but for a retrieval tool the core behavioral intent is clear.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists the key use cases and output highlights. Every sentence adds value and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has 10 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, but the schema covers all parameters. The description summarizes the use cases and return content adequately. It would benefit from an explicit note about how filters combine or when to use specialized siblings, but it is sufficiently complete for a broad query 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds a helpful summary of filter categories but no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Fetch work orders from IBM MAS with flexible filters.' It also enumerates the main filtering dimensions. It does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings like get_work_order_detail or get_open_backlog, but the generic-filter phrasing makes the scope apparent.

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 gives clear context by saying 'Use this to query open WOs, filter by status, work type, asset, crew, date range, or priority.' This tells an agent when to invoke it for flexible WO queries. However, it does not name alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_work_order_detail for a single WO or get_overdue_work_orders for a predefined set.

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