list_orders

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint:true, but the description adds valuable context: the return format (pagination + array of objects), the summary fields, and the behavior of detail and raw parameters. It does not discuss rate limits or auth requirements, but for a read-only list tool with annotated safety, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every clause adds information: filter options, return summary, and parameter use cases. It 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?

Given 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: it lists all filter dimensions, states the return shape (pagination + array with key fields), and explains how to access full details or raw payloads. It does not need to repeat schema defaults or parameter syntax, as those are already in the input schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful usage guidance for 'detail' and 'raw' parameters, explaining when to use them ('Use detail:'full' for line items/delivery/payments, raw:true for the untouched payload'). This goes beyond the schema's simple descriptions, though filters are only listed generically.

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 function: 'List orders with filters by status, customer name, number, and created-date range.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the return shape is described. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_order (single order) and list_customers (different resource).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: listing orders with various filters. It also explains when to use detail:'full' and raw:true, which are key parameter decisions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_order for a single order, so it misses explicit exclusions or alternative tool guidance.

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