slam_orders_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination and filtering capabilities, which is helpful, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid filter values. For a read operation with 6 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality (returns paginated order lists), key fields included (customer name, line item count), and primary filtering capabilities. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 read-only list tool with excellent schema coverage (100%) but no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and filtering but doesn't address the return format, pagination behavior details, or how it differs from similar order-related tools. Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations), it should provide more contextual guidance.

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 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions filtering by financial_status and fulfillment_status (which the schema already describes) but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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 clearly states the tool returns a paginated list of orders with specific fields (customer name and line item count) and is filterable by statuses. It uses specific verbs ('returns', 'filterable') and identifies the resource ('orders'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'slam_orders_get' or 'slam_orders_search'.

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 retrieving filtered order lists with pagination, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'slam_orders_get' (for single orders) or 'slam_orders_search' (which might offer different filtering capabilities). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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