List orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the endpoint is paginated and returns status, plan, domain, and expiration details—useful context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations and adds value by describing what the caller can expect in the response.

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 sentences, zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('Retrieve a paginated list...'), and the second sentence gives a practical use case. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only list operation with six optional, well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential usage context: what it returns and why you'd use it. No output schema exists, but the description lists the key fields returned. It doesn't mention pagination defaults or edge cases, but those are minor for a standard list endpoint. Overall, it's complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 100%: every parameter (page, sort, domain, status, is_trial, per_page) has a description. The tool description adds almost nothing beyond the schema – it mentions 'paginated' but that's already implied by page/per_page. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't provide extra semantic detail or compensate for gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a paginated list of mail orders associated with your account.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling list-order tools (hosting_listOrdersV1, agency-hosting_listOrdersV1) by explicitly scoping to 'mail orders'. It also lists the key fields returned (status, plan, domain, expiration), giving the agent a precise sense of what this tool does.

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 states a concrete use case: 'Use this endpoint to monitor your mail services.' This gives clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly warn against using other list-order tools or mention when not to use it, though the 'mail orders' qualifier implicitly separates it from hosting/agency-hosting order lists. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so a 4 rather than 5.

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