get_pending_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses 'Read-only,' which is a meaningful safety trait for an agent. However, it does not mention any required authentication, whether results come in a specific order, or any rate-limit implications. The read-only hint adds value but leaves other behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The action is front-loaded ('List currently pending orders') and the safety trait is appended immediately. Perfectly sized for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only list operation, the description covers the essential information an agent needs to select and call it. It lacks an explicit note about the return format, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document; the description adds nothing needed here.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List currently pending orders.' It clearly indicates the operation and scope, and the 'currently pending' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from get_historical_orders. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 choose this tool over alternatives. The availability of get_historical_orders suggests a distinction between pending and historical, but the description does not state it explicitly or explain the conditions under which one should be used over the other.

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