List orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning pagination and optional filters by status or contact, plus the purpose of reviewing purchase and payment status. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful additional behavior beyond the structured metadata.

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-loading the core action and resource, then adding the use case. Every phrase adds value—pagination, filters, and intent—with no redundant or filler content.

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 annotations (read-only, open world) and the schema with defaulting locationId, the description provides enough for an agent to call correctly: it knows this is a paginated list with optional filters against orders. No output schema exists, but return value explanation is not required when absent. The tool is simple enough that no critical information is missing.

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 only 40%, with limit, offset, and contactId lacking descriptions. The description partially compensates by indicating 'pagination' (mapping to limit/offset) and 'filter by status or contact' (mapping to status and contactId). It does not explain the default locationId behavior, though that is covered in the schema. This adds meaning but not complete parameter-level detail, giving a baseline-adjusted 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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'payment orders' and scope 'for a location'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ghl_get_order (single order) and ghl_list_transactions by focusing on orders. Optional filters are mentioned, making the primary action unambiguous.

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 states the tool should be used 'to see what was purchased and whether it was paid,' providing a clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other order-related queries, such as ghl_get_order for a single order or ghl_list_transactions for transactions, so there are no exclusions. This is clear context without explicit when-not guidance, aligning with a score of 4.

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