merit_list_purchase_orders

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-style list operation and the filter modes, but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, return shape, pagination, or authentication requirements.

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 with no filler; the core action and endpoint are first, the sibling distinction second, and filter semantics last. Every sentence carries 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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, scope, and filter options but omits the response format and any operational constraints. With no annotations to fill safety gaps, it is adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to document parameters. It does restate dateFilter and statusFilter semantics, which matches the schema, but adds no new syntactic meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List Merit Aktiva purchase orders waiting approval' with the underlying POST endpoint. Explicitly distinguishes from booked purchase invoices, so an agent can separate it from sibling merit_list_purchase_invoices.

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?

Gives a clear use case ('waiting approval') and warns that it is not for booked purchase invoices (getpurchorders). It doesn't enumerate alternative tools by exact sibling name, but the exclusion is enough to route a simple choice.

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