consignment_dealer_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only,' defines the population of rows, and specifies that failed rows sort first, which is meaningful behavioral detail. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or output shape, but those are less critical for a zero-parameter read-only queue.

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 compact and efficiently structured: the first sentence defines scope, the second covers ordering, the third routes retry behavior, and the final phrase states read-only semantics. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant restatement.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is largely complete: it explains what rows appear, their ordering, and the correct next action for failed rows. It does not enumerate return fields or specify how failures are indicated in the response, but the queue-of-orders framing makes the expected result type reasonably clear.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed; the baseline for a 0-parameter tool 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as the post-sale consignment settlement queue and defines its scope with concrete inclusion criteria: sold lines whose settlement invoice is unbooked or unpaid. It also distinguishes from retry_consignment_invoice by explicitly naming that tool for retries. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', relying on the queue/sorting language to imply a read-only list.

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 concrete usage context: this is the queue for incomplete consignment settlements, and any retry of a failed settlement invoice should be routed to retry_consignment_invoice. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with similar sibling tools such as consignment_queue or pending_orders, but the retry routing and read-only note provide sufficient directional guidance.

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