List order history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value beyond them by naming the required `trade:read` scope, the 600 req/min budget shared across the `default` tool group, and the fact that reads hit stored records rather than a venue. It stops short of describing result ordering or default page size.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the rate-limit/scope facts are compact and useful. One sentence ('Page with the nextBefore the response carries.') is grammatically awkward, but nothing here is filler.

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?

With ten optional filters and no output schema, the description covers pagination direction and the cost/scope model, which is the most important operational context. It leaves gaps an agent would want: result ordering, what an unfiltered call returns, and default/max page size for `limit`.

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 all ten parameters are already documented in the schema and this is the baseline case. The description only adds one small piece of linking context — that paging uses the `nextBefore` value carried in the response — which the `before` parameter description partly covers already.

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 first sentence names the resource (the account's order history) and states its two defining behaviors: filtering and pagination. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from close siblings like list_open_orders or list_bot_orders, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 explains mechanics (paging, scope, rate limit) but gives no when-to-use guidance: nothing says this covers historical/filled/canceled orders versus list_open_orders, nor when to reach for list_bot_orders instead of the `bot` filter. The agent must infer the boundary entirely from the sibling names.

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