wafle_orders_timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds behavioral context by listing the types of events returned and indicating chronological ordering, which goes beyond the annotations. This is useful context without contradicting 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a clear usage note. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and use case. It mentions the types of events included, which gives a high-level view of the return content. It does not describe pagination or exact response structure, but with no output schema, the description carries more responsibility; still, it is adequately complete for an audit-focused read-only tool.

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 only 50%: the 'slug' parameter has a helpful description with examples, but 'order_id' has no description. The tool description does not elaborate on either parameter, particularly 'order_id', leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('the chronological timeline of an order'), and enumerates the event types included (status changes, payment events, shipment, notes, refunds). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wafle_orders_get by focusing on the timeline/history rather than current order state.

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 second sentence provides a clear usage context: 'Use to audit how an order got into its current state.' This explains when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. That is a minor gap, so it falls short of a 5 but is still well-guided.

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