customers_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it has performance implications, whether it requires authentication, what the response looks like, or any side effects (e.g., dry_run parameter suggests possibly a preview mode but this isn't explained). The description is minimal and doesn't cover any behavioral aspects.

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 a single short phrase with no waste, but it's under-specified. It provides a decent amount of information per word, but the brevity itself is a problem because it leaves out critical context. It's concise but not necessarily well-structured for aiding understanding.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose of the tool beyond a vague phrase, doesn't clarify required vs optional parameters, doesn't mention the return format, and doesn't address any caveats. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without additional information.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the 7 parameters. The description mentions 'por periodo' (by period) which hints at date_from/date_to, but doesn't explain any of the other parameters: limit, fields, offset, dry_run. The description adds minimal meaning over the raw parameter names, which are self-explanatory to some extent (limit, offset, date_from, date_to) but fields and dry_run are ambiguous. Baseline for 0% coverage is low, and this description doesn't compensate.

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 is a single phrase 'Ordenes de un cliente por periodo' meaning 'Orders of a customer by period' in Spanish. It states a verb-resource relationship but lacks specificity about what operation is performed (list, retrieve, aggregate). It doesn't explain the meaning of the date range parameters or the other input fields. The name 'customers_orders' is similar to other siblings like 'customers_list', 'customers_detail', but the description doesn't distinguish it clearly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling list includes many analytics and customer tools, but there's no exclusions or context. An agent has to infer from the name and short description that it's about customer orders by period, but no direction is given about which use case it fits or how it differs from e.g. 'customers_detail' or 'analytics_*' tools.

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