get_order_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves order history but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication (implied by 'authenticated user' but not explicit), rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential scope. Every part of the description earns its place by specifying what is retrieved and for whom.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, authentication requirements beyond implication, or how parameters interact. For a tool that likely returns structured financial data, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or providing usage examples. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('order history') with scope ('for the authenticated user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools that might also retrieve order-related data, such as 'get_order_blocks' or 'get_positions', which could have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_order_blocks' or 'get_positions' that might retrieve similar order-related information, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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