orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: it is a stored-record read that does not touch live game state ("as stored, without reading the game") and is usable off-turn, implying no side effects. It does not state permissions or any mutation risk, but for a read-oriented tool this is reasonable coverage.

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 tool's identity and availability is stated early, which is good. However, the middle is a comma-spliced wall of field names that reads more like return-shape documentation than guidance, giving it a dense, slightly bloated feel.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (id, unit, status, steps, pause, last, issued_count, purpose) and the filter values. It is largely complete for a one-parameter read tool, with the main gap being no explicit routing versus sibling order tools.

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 0% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does: it enumerates the accepted values "open" (default), "closed" and "all" for the status filter, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly, though it is muddled by reusing the word "status" for the order's own state field.

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 makes clear this returns the caller's stored conditional orders ("My conditional orders ... as stored"), and points at the sibling that creates them ("see give_order"), so an agent can tell it apart from give_order/resume_order/cancel_order. The phrasing is field-list heavy rather than a crisp verb+resource, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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 only usage signal is the availability window "Usable while it is not my turn," which is useful timing context. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-other-tools guidance relative to siblings like assignments or resume_order, so it stays at implied usage.

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