orders_history

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it supports incremental sync via filter_since_id and a date window, and it returns {history[], pagination}. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the sync mechanism and return structure, without contradicting the read-only hint.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with core purpose and followed by a compact return shape. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately provides the return shape ({history[], pagination}) and highlights the incremental sync capability. It does not detail the fields within each history entry, but given the schema already covers all parameters and annotations confirm read-only safety, the description 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter definitions for all 7 params. The description reinforces the purpose of filter_since_id and the date window but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as returning order change history with status transitions, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_orders and customers_history. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'Retrieve'), relying on the noun phrase 'Order change history' to convey the action.

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 by mentioning 'incremental sync via filter_since_id and a date window', which tells users when this tool is useful (for syncing changes). It does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_order or list_orders, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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