query_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 state that it returns a concise order summary and lists the underlying GET APIs, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, performance impact of large date ranges, or any rate limits directly in the description field.

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, with two sentences that state the purpose and return type, followed by a relevant list of underlying APIs. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains what the tool does and the return type, but does not describe the response structure, clarify scope relative to archived orders, or mention error handling/pagination. Given the complexity, this is adequate but not complete.

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 the schema already fully documents all six parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the filter dimensions (time range, status, channel) already present in the schema, 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 uses a specific verb '查詢' (query) with a clear resource '訂單列表' (order list) and specifies filter dimensions (time range, status, channel). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_order_detail (detail lookup) and cancel_order (mutation).

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 implies usage for order list queries with filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_archived_orders (archived orders) or get_order_detail (single order details). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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