get_pending_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides useful context: that an awaiting_approval record is created when an alarm order_spec triggers, and that orders do not open automatically (approve_pending_order required). This goes beyond a simple 'lists' statement and clarifies the lifecycle, though it doesn't mention side effects or permission requirements.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value: purpose, status filter, and a critical behavioral note. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

While the core purpose and status filter are clear, the absence of an output schema and lack of explanation for limit, request_id, and idempotency_key leave gaps. The description doesn't mention return format or pagination behavior, which would be helpful for a listing tool. It's adequate but not fully complete.

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 description explains the 'status' parameter by listing its enum values, but the schema has 0% description coverage for the other three parameters (limit, request_id, idempotency_key). Since the description only compensates for one of four parameters, it leaves significant gaps in understanding the full input schema.

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 starts with 'Onay bekleyen emir kayıtlarını listeler' (lists order records awaiting approval), a specific verb+resource combination that clearly defines the tool's scope. It further distinguishes from sibling tools like get_open_orders by focusing on the approval workflow and enumerating all possible statuses in the filter.

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 its use for viewing orders in various approval states, especially pending approval, and notes that approve_pending_order is required for orders to open. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_open_orders or list_alerts, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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