get_redemption_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a safe read operation and 'executed' adds useful status filtering, but the description does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or ordering. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action, the resource, and the optional filter in minimal words.

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?

The tool is simple, has no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the essential purpose and filter, but it does not mention return shape or clarify how it differs from the closely related get_redemption_queue tool, so the context is only minimally 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 description coverage is 50%, and the description compensates by explaining that the asset parameter filters by iAsset. The limit parameter is already documented in the schema with a default and maximum. Together, all parameters have adequate semantic meaning.

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 states the resource ('executed redemption orders') and the action ('get'), and adds an optional filter by iAsset. It is specific enough to be distinguishable from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_redemption_queue.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_redemption_queue. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or recommended contexts beyond the implicit fact that it returns executed orders.

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