get_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only status, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond what the parameter names imply. The schema descriptions for parameters add some context, but the tool description itself lacks crucial details such as return format or side effects.

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 (7 words) and front-loaded with the essential verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description fails to explain the return format, pagination mechanics, or any constraints beyond what is implied by the schema. This is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool, especially given the complexity of cursor-based pagination.

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% with parameter descriptions that clarify 'next' as pagination cursor, 'limit' as max 1000, and date fields as RFC3339 format. The description adds only the generic phrase 'with filters', which does not enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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?

The description clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (FBS orders list) and mentions filtering capability. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_new_orders' by specifying 'FBS' orders, though it could be more explicit about what FBS means.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_new_orders' or 'get_sales'. The description does not mention exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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