Internal Account Order History

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

The annotations already establish `readOnlyHint=true`, `idempotentHint=true`, and `openWorldHint=true`, so the description does not need to carry the full safety profile. It adds meaningful operational context beyond annotations: the internal API key requirement, the `Authorization: ApiKey <key>` header option, the instruction never to pass API keys as tool arguments, and the fact that the server forwards the key from session/header to TronSave.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and scope, then moves through auth requirements, usage guidance, read-only status, and sibling pairing. Every sentence adds useful operational context, and the auth warning is stated clearly without unnecessary repetition.

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 an output schema and fully documented input schema, so the description does not need to explain return values or parameter formats. It still covers the complexity that matters here: internal API key modes, header forwarding, pagination behavior, read-only status, and the related single-order 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 100%, so both `page` and `pageSize` are already well documented in the input schema. The description reinforces pagination and newest-first ordering but does not add syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: list paginated order history for the internal account linked to the API key, ordered newest first. It also distinguishes the tool from `tronsave_internal_order_details`, which is for a single order's full snapshot, so an agent can tell these apart without opening either schema.

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 description gives clear usage context: use when the user asks about past purchases, fulfillment, payouts, or delegates on their internal account. It also names the natural alternative for single-order details, though it does not explicitly contrast this with broader order-list siblings such as `tronsave_list_orders`.

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