list_order_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. However, it only states the action ('list') and the endpoint. It does not disclose read-only nature, authorization requirements, rate limits, or response format. The implicit 'list' suggests read-only, but this is not confirmed.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and includes the endpoint and example integrations without any wasted words. Every sentence provides value.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It could be improved by indicating the return format or listing possible statuses, but it still provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's scope.

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 100% description coverage with the single parameter 'integrationId' described as 'Company integration ID (required)'. The tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 'List order statuses for an integration' with a specific verb and resource. It also includes the HTTP endpoint and example integrations (BigCommerce, Shopify), which distinguishes it from siblings since no other tool deals with order statuses.

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 mentions example integrations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there alternatives listed. It provides no exclusion criteria or prerequisites beyond the integrationId parameter.

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