web_get_order_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful quirk: status is best-effort and only reliable for one observed status type, otherwise null. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like list scope, pagination, or explicit read-only guarantees, so transparency is partial.

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 concise sentences: the first declares the purpose and output fields, the second adds a critical reliability caveat. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every clause contributes meaningful information.

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?

For a parameterless list tool, the description covers the core function and includes an important data-quality caveat. An output schema exists to define return values, so the description need not enumerate them. It could be more explicit about whether the overview covers all orders or a limited set, but the essential context is present.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter details to clarify. A zero-parameter tool warrants the baseline 4 since the description appropriately focuses on the result and the status caveat instead.

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 states a specific action ('Bestellübersicht abrufen' – retrieve order overview) and lists the included fields: order number, item, date, status. It is unambiguous and the 'Übersicht' framing implies a list view distinct from the sibling web_get_order, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web_get_order, web_get_cart, or the other list tools. The description only defines what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer selection from the tool name and context, which is insufficient.

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