List Active Orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to cover that ground again. It usefully adds that the tool surfaces pending orders and phone numbers, but it does not disclose ordering, limits, or whether the status filter changes the response shape. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the primary action, the key use case, and the recommended follow-up tool. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 the low complexity, one optional parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and call the tool. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to prefer order_history or get_order instead, but that is a minor omission.

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% and the single optional status parameter is explicitly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 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 states a verb and resource — 'List your active orders' — and adds a concrete recovery use case. However, 'active' is not precisely defined relative to the status filter, which also includes cancelled and completed statuses. It also does not explicitly distinguish itself from the order_history sibling.

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 gives explicit context for when to use this tool: after a session interruption, to find pending orders and their phone numbers, followed by get_sms. It does not, however, state when not to use it or mention alternatives like order_history for historical lookups.

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