Get customer orders

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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint by disclosing pagination, the machine-readable coverage envelope fields (coverage, received, total_count, pages_read), and a hard rule that coverage:"partial" must be surfaced and must not be reported as complete. That is exactly the kind of behavioral constraint annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the get_order routing, then the coverage constraint — a sensible order with no filler. The coverage sentence is dense but every clause (field names, MUST, the prohibition) carries operational weight.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's explanation of the coverage envelope is essential and present. For a 3-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs to call and report correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already documents id as a UUID, page starting at 1, and per_page clamping to 1-100. The description adds only that results are paginated, so 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 (List), resource (order IDs of a customer), keying parameter (customer ID), and scope (paginated, purchase history). It is immediately distinguishable from get_order, which is named as the tool for line-item detail.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_order for line items (items[].name, quantity, price), which is the natural follow-up. It also mandates how to report partial coverage. No explicit when-not-to-use case, but the alternative is named with its condition.

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