distributor_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It honestly states 'Read-only' and documents valid status values and that empty status means all orders. However, it does not describe output shape, sorting, pagination behavior, or whether the distributor parameter restricts by name or ID.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the most important parameter semantics and a safety-relevant annotation substitute. The status list is useful rather than filler, and there is no redundant wording.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return format and all parameter semantics. It covers the status list and read-only nature but omits what the returned records contain, how limit and distributor interact, and any ordering or defaults beyond the schema's own default of 50. An agent could make a basic call but would not fully understand the results or optional filtering behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the status parameter's allowed values and default meaning ('empty = all'), but it does not describe the limit parameter or the distributor parameter at all. This is insufficient for correct parameter usage beyond the one documented field.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List Distributor Orders' and clarifies the domain with '(drop-ship / restock purchase orders to RSR)'. It distinguishes the tool from catalog/route/quote siblings like distributor_catalog_search or distributor_quote, though it does not explicitly contrast it with nearby list tools like pending_orders.

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 implies usage context through the status filter list and 'empty = all', and the read-only note signals safe listing behavior. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives such as pending_orders or distributor_route_queue, and no 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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