get_orders_summary

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description goes beyond this by disclosing that the summary may be partial (partial:true) if the max_pages window is exceeded, that totalCount is always exact, and that revenue/status are computed over a limited aggregation window. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs in all key behavioral details (exact count, metrics, partial flag). No wasted words; every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the main return values (totalCount, revenue, AOV, status distribution, partial flag) and the aggregation window. It does not mention filter_status default behavior or error cases, but for a read-only summary tool with good metric coverage, it is reasonably 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 has 100% coverage with property descriptions that already explain max_pages (window of 100 orders, count always exact) and date format. The description reinforces these semantics but does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema, which takes the baseline score of 3.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('summary') and resource ('orders'), and lists concrete outputs (totalCount, revenue, AOV, status distribution). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_orders (which lists orders) and get_customers_summary (which summarizes customers) by focusing on period-scoped order aggregates.

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 usage is implied by the word 'summary' and the described metrics, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of list_orders or get_customers_summary. No 'when not to use' or alternative tool references are provided, though the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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