get_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful specifics beyond the schema: status values are validated against the DB, results are sorted by id by default, cancelled orders are included here, and `include_items` attaches an items array. It doesn't mention default limit/offset behavior or error cases, but the disclosed behaviors are substantial for an unannotated tool.

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 four tight sentences with no filler. The main verb and resource are in the first sentence, filters follow logically, and each sentence earns its place by adding distinct useful information.

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 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behaviors: what is listed, how to filter, how to include items, default ordering, and how cancelled orders are treated. It does not describe the full order object shape or pagination defaults, but those are partially covered by the schema, and the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 value by grouping `from_date` and `to_date` as a date range on order_date, clarifying that ISO date or datetime strings are accepted, and reinforcing that `include_items` attaches an items array. This is extra semantic clarity beyond the individual property descriptions.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource ('List orders') and then enumerates the specific filtering dimensions and the `include_items` attachment behavior, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It also differentiates itself from analytic siblings by stating that cancelled orders are shown here but excluded from analytic tools.

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 does not name the sibling tools directly, but it gives clear context: this is the order-list tool with exact status/customer/date filtering and optional item embedding, and it explicitly notes that cancelled orders are included here but excluded from analytic tools. That exclusion helps an agent choose this tool over analytic siblings when cancelled data is needed, though it could be stronger by naming alternatives like get_order_items.

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