List orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about loading relations via 'with', which is useful, but does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, or response format. This is minimal additional behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy or fluff.

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 operation with optional relations and pagination. The schema fully documents parameters, and the description explains the 'with' parameter. No output schema exists, but for a list tool the return type is likely Order objects. The description lacks details on filtering (e.g., by client or status), but since the schema only accepts with/limit/offset, the absence is acceptable. Overall, the description is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (with, limit, offset). The description adds value by providing examples for 'with' (client, products), clarifying what relations can be loaded. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Relations to load (comma-separated)' description.

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 tool lists orders/baskets, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguished from sibling tools like get_order (single Order), create_order, and cancel_order by being the list operation.

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 gives usage guidance for the 'with' parameter ('Use "with" for relations like client, products') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_order or list_invoices. It is implied by the name and context, but no exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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