list_organization_orders

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

The description does not contradict annotations, which are absent. It clarifies that the listing spans all events in an organization, but it does not disclose behaviors such as pagination via the continuation parameter, status filtering, or ordering. For a list operation with no annotations, this is some context but leaves important behavioral details undocumented.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: the verb, resource, and scope are all present and clearly arranged. This is an ideal length for such a simple operation.

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?

Even though an output schema exists and return values are covered there, the description omits critical context for important parameters like continuation and changed_since, and it does not explain filtering behavior or pagination. The one-sentence description is too thin for a tool with four parameters and no annotations, leaving an agent with too much guesswork.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the status, continuation, changed_since, or organization_id parameters. An agent using this tool must infer parameter meaning entirely from names or external knowledge, which is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 ('List') and resource ('orders') and clearly scopes the operation to 'across all events in an organization.' This scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_event_orders or list_user_orders, so an agent can understand exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'across all events in an organization' implies this tool should be used when an organization-wide order listing is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as list_event_orders or list_user_orders. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions that would guide tool selection.

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