get_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds 'Sums in RUBLES' as an additional behavioral detail. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default response format, or that this is a read-only operation. The description is too minimal to provide adequate transparency for a list endpoint with 7 parameters.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get customer orders') and the second sentence adds a valuable currency detail. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain response structure, pagination behavior, or constraints like the expand limit. The lack of behavioral context makes it insufficient for an agent to fully understand what to expect from the 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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'filtering and sorting', which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and there is no need for description compensation.

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 retrieves customer orders, with filtering and sorting capabilities. 'Get customer orders' is a specific verb+resource pair, and the plural form implies a list operation, distinguishing it from singular 'get_customer_order'. However, it doesn't explicitly say it lists multiple orders or contrast with purchase orders.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions filtering and sorting, implying use for listing with options, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_customer_order for a single order or over get_purchase_orders for purchase orders. No when/when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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