orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: Amazon serves 10 orders per page and max_pages caps how many pages are actually fetched, which tells the agent the call is paginated and bounded.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the parameter and pagination details. Every sentence carries information; only the slightly cryptic 'year-YYYY' token costs it a perfect score.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the resource, both parameters, and the pagination model. Return-value shape is correctly left to the output schema, though sibling differentiation remains unaddressed.

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%, so the description must carry the burden and largely does: it enumerates the accepted period values ('last30', 'months-3', 'year-YYYY') that the schema omits as an enum, and explains what max_pages controls. It does not state the default behavior or whether an invalid period errors.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: order history, enriched with each item's return window. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names or contrasts itself with the sibling returnable_items, so an agent must infer which one to pick when it only wants return-eligible items.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool named among returnable_items/product/cart. The pagination note hints at cost trade-offs but never frames it as guidance for choosing this tool.

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