get_orders

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 does not state that this is a read-only operation, mention any authentication or rate-limit requirements, or describe the response format. For a list retrieval tool, it lacks essential behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and filtering options. There is no extraneous information, and every word contributes to the tool's function. Ideal length and structure for quick agent comprehension.

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 description is minimal and does not address important aspects like response format, pagination behavior beyond schema defaults, or any limitations. Since there is no output schema, the agent has no idea what the returned list looks like. The 5-parameter tool with optional filters deserves more contextual guidance.

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%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions filtering by status and date, which repeats what the schema already conveys, without adding any extra meaning, default behaviors, or relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high 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?

Description states a specific verb (getting) and resource (list of Kaspi orders) with filtering capabilities by status and date. It clearly differentiates from siblings by plurality (get_orders vs get_order) and resource type (orders vs products), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It does not mention that get_order is for a single order or that get_products is for products, nor does it provide any conditions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the name, not explicit.

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