list_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Lists' without mentioning that this is a read-only operation, any side effects, pagination behavior, or return format. The mention of 'filtering criteria' hints at behavior but never explains how filtering is applied or whether results are ordered.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource, and every part contributes to the basic purpose. However, it is almost too terse, missing needed context, so it is not a perfect 5.

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?

Given the empty schema and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: it does not explain where the 'supplied account' comes from, how 'filtering criteria' are passed, or what the response looks like. An agent has no idea how to structure the invocation or interpret the result, making the description incomplete for reliable use.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, but the description claims 'using the supplied account and filtering criteria', implying parameters that do not exist in the schema. This inconsistency makes the semantic meaning confusing rather than additive. Since there are no parameters to clarify, the description's mention of unspecified inputs harms rather than helps.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Lists cTrader orders'. It adds scope with 'account and filtering criteria', which helps distinguish it from siblings like list_positions and get_order_details. The only shortcoming is that it doesn't explicitly name those siblings to differentiate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use list_orders versus alternatives such as list_positions or get_order_details. The statement merely describes what the tool does, leaving an agent to infer any contextual selection criteria like needing a list of all orders rather than positions or a single order.

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