List Printful orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the 'newest first' ordering and the semantic meaning of a draft order with needs_approval true. This goes beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent correctly interpret results. It does not mention pagination details, but those are in the schema, so this is acceptable.

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 the core purpose and ordering front-loaded in the first sentence, and a useful clarification in the second. There is no redundant jargon or repetition of schema details. Every sentence adds value, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 is a simple list endpoint with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, sorting, filtering, and a key status nuance. It does not describe pagination behavior (limit/offset) in detail, but those are standard and partially documented in the schema. For its complexity, the description is quite complete; only the offset parameter lacks any explanation, minor for this context.

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 67% (limit and status have descriptions, offset does not). The description lists all status values (already in the enum) and adds the specific nuance about draft orders, which enriches the 'status' parameter meaning. However, it does not explain 'offset' at all, leaving a gap. Since the coverage threshold (80%) is not met, the description should compensate more, but it does reasonably clarify the status semantics.

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 precisely what the tool does: 'List orders for the token's store, newest first.' This specifies the verb (list), the resource (orders), and the scope (token's store). It differentiates from siblings like printful_get_order (single order) and printful_list_store_products (products) by clearly targeting orders as a collection. The sorting order and filtering capability are also mentioned, making the purpose 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (to list orders) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like printful_get_order for fetching a specific order. It provides context on filtering by status and explains a special case (draft with needs_approval) which aids interpretation, but it does not give exclusions or explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings. Usage is inferable but not clearly delineated.

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