list_purchase_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact API endpoint (GET /v1/pos/purchase_orders), the read-only nature (via GET), and outlines the return structure (total_found, returned, purchase_orders with fields). This goes beyond a minimal statement and provides useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't discuss pagination or limits beyond the schema, so a 4.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, API endpoint, return structure) and each sentence provides distinct value. It is concise and front-loaded with the purpose.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, API call, and return structure. It lacks explicit pagination guidance, but the schema handles the max_results default. This is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter (max_results) with a description. The tool description does not repeat or add parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 '取得' (get) and resource 'POS 採購單列表' (POS purchase order list), and explains its purpose ('了解進貨狀況與採購歷史' / understand stocking status and purchase history). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_purchase_order_detail or create_purchase_order.

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?

It provides a clear use case: understanding purchase status and history. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the list-vs-detail distinction is implied by naming the resource as a list. This is clear context without exclusions, so a 4.

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