list_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that ephemeral verifications are excluded, which is a critical behavioral limitation. It also states the tool returns both active and past orders across multiple resource types. Missing details like pagination or response format, but the disclosed exceptions and scope add significant value.

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. The first states the main purpose and scope; the second adds an important limitation. Every sentence serves a purpose, with 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?

Given a crowded sibling space and no output schema, the description successfully conveys the tool's broad scope and a key exclusion. It does not explicitly differentiate from targeted status tools like get_rental or get_esim_status, but the scope statement helps the agent infer when to use this umbrella listing. The lack of response format details is somewhat compensated by the clarity of the listing concept.

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 schema has 2 parameters: 'kind' with an enum and description, and 'limit' with only min/max/default. Description does not mention parameters, but it does enumerate the specific kinds covered, which aligns with the enum. With 50% schema coverage, the description adds some context for 'kind' but nothing for 'limit', leaving its semantics only partially clarified.

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 and resource: 'List the user's active and past orders across SMS rentals, dedicated numbers, eSIMs, and proxies.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings by enumerating the covered order types and explicitly excludes ephemeral verifications, clarifying its precise scope.

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?

Provides a clear usage note that ephemeral verifications are NOT listable and directs the user to use the rental id as the handle for those. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for those cases, so the guidance is more implicit than 'use X instead.' The sibling list does include get_rental, but that connection is not made explicit.

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