yearning_my_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. Description adds pagination and filtering details, but does not elaborate on rate limits, auth needs, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two concise sentences, no fluff. The first sentence captures the core purpose and filtering options, while the second provides the API reference. Efficient.

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 annotations, schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description provides additional context on scope (current user) and filtering. It is sufficient for a list tool, though it could mention pagination behavior more explicitly.

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 descriptions cover most parameters (status, text, work_id, etc.) with clear explanations. The description reiterates filtering capabilities but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists orders submitted by the current user with filtering by status, keyword, and order number. This distinguishes it from siblings like yearning_order_detail (single order) and yearning_audit_orders (auditing others' 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?

Usage is implied through the description (list current user's orders), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. No alternatives like other list tools are mentioned.

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